FINAL REPORT

On

Rangeland Management Plan and its Implementation Strategies

Project :Additional Financing for Social Safety Nets Project

Social Safety Nets Project

Harihar Bhawan, Lalitpur,

Nepal

Submitted by

Dinesh Pariyar

Rangeland Expert

i

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ADS Agricultural Development Strategy

AGDP Agriculture Domestic Product

APP Agriculture Perspective Plan

ARS Agriculture Research Station

CBO Community Based Organization

CBSP Community Based Seed Production

CLDP Community Livestock Development Project

DDC Dairy Development Corporation

DFRS Department of Forest Research & Survey

DOFS Department of Forest Services

DLS Department of Livestock Services

DLSO District Livestock Service Office

DLP Directorate of Livestock Production

DLAT District Livestock Action Team

DM Dry Matter

DNPWC Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation

DSCWM Department of Soil Conservation and Watershed Management

DOPR Department of Plant Resources.

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FYM Farm Yard Manure

FNCCI Federation of Nepal Chamber of Commerce and Industries.

HLFFDP Hills Leasehold Forestry and Forage Development Project

LFLD Leasehold Forestry and Livestock Programme

LRMP Land Resource Mapping Project

LU Livestock Unit

Masl Meter Above the Sea Level.

MOFSC Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation

MOAD Ministry of Agriculture Development

MOAC Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives

MOI Ministry of Irrigation

MOE Ministry of Energy

MOLD Ministry of Local Development

MOT Ministry of Tourism

MPFS Master Plan of Forestry Sector.

Mt Metric tonne

NARC Nepal Agricultural Research Council

NTNC National Trust for Nature Conservation

NAST Nepal Academy of Science and Technology

NBPDP Northern Belt Pasture Development Programme

NGDP National Gross Domestic Product

NGO Non Government Organization

NPAFC National Pasture and Animal Feed Center

PA Protected Areas

PFD Pasture and Fodder Division

RDC Rangeland Development Committees

R &D Research and Development

RUGA Rangeland User‟s Group Association.

TDN Total Digestible Nutrient

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

VDC Village Development Committee

VLAT Village Level Action Team

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ACRONYMS i

TABLE OF CONTENTS ii-iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v-vi

1. INTRODUCTION 1-2

Background

Objectives

Scope

Methodology

2. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF RANGELAND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT 2-4

3.AREAS AND DISTRIBUTION OF RANGELANDS IN NEPAL 4-5

Distribution of rangeland

Rangeland in the protected areas

4. IMPORTANCE OF RANGELANDS 5-7

Source of feed

Source of soil and water conservation

Reservoir of genetic resources for biodiversity conservation

5. MAJOR THREATS OF RANGELAND 7-11

Loss of palatable species

Invasion of poisonous plants

Low productivity of rangelands

Overgrazing and high stocking rate

Loss of sheep and goat by predator

6. RANGELAND DEVELOPMENT 11-14

7. OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVING THE PRODUCTIVITY OF RANGELAND 14-15

Use of proper species

Application of fertilizer

Use of irrigation

Protection from grazing

8. FORAGE SEED AND PLANTING MATERIALS 15-17

9. REVIEW OF THE RANGELAND RELATED POLICIES 17-19

Strength

Weakness

10. PROMOTION OF RANGELAND BASED INDUSTRIES. 19-20

11. FINDING OF THE STUDY 21-22

12. MAJOR CHALLENGES ON RANGELAND DEVELOPMENT AND

MANAGEMENT

22-24

Changes in government policies

Limited and un continued public services support activities

Poor linkage among stakeholders

Poor infrastructure and illiteracy

Prevailing of kipat system in practice

Absence of basic information

Deteriorating condition of associated forest

Overgrazing

Inadequate research and extension

Limited program for product diversification

Poor socio-economic condition

iii

Encroachment of rangeland

13. RANGELAND MANAGEMENT PLAN 24-28

Guiding principles and justification

Land ownership and property rights

Grazing management

Conservation of forage

Nutrient management

Introduction of exotic grasses and legume

Undesirable bush control

Reseeding

Inventory range resource inventory

Integrated research and development activities

Site selection for rangeland-livestock improvement

Construction of trails and bridges

Stock water development

Resource center establishment

14. GOVERNANCE AND COORDINATION MECHANISM TO IMPLEMENT

RANGELAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

29

15.IMPLEMENTATION MODALITY,STRATEGIES AND PRIORITY ACTIONS 29-37

Implementation modality

Priority actions

Projection on activities

16. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 37-39

Priority on budget and manpower

Joint programmes formulation by stakeholders

Ecozone specific programme formulation

Promotion of native species and suitable technology generation

Self-sufficient in seed and plant materials

Adoption of health care practices

Amendments in Rangeland Policy

Improvement on bilateral relationship with Tibet for regular use of rangelands

REFERENCES 40-43

ANNEXES 44-45

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This Rangeland Management Plan report is the result of collaborative efforts made by many

organizations for many years, teams and individuals to develop and improve rangelands of Nepal.

This report was prepared within the frame work and guidelines provided by Social Safety Nets Project

( SSNP) under the over all supervision of Mr.Laxman Prasad Paudel, coordinator of IWRMP, who

coordinated and facilitated in many ways.

Many thanks are due to Mr. Rajendra Adhikary, Joint Secretary ,who facilitated the study on behalf of

Ministry of Agriculture Development. Particular thanks are due to Mr.Devendra Yadav, Dr.Dinesh

Parajuli, Dr.Damodar Sedhain,Mr.Rudra Prasad Paudel, Mr. Kishor Kumar Shrestha and Mr. Keshab

Achhami who have provided important documents/reports to accomplish this work. Without their

support and contribution this work would have been impossible.

Special thanks are due to Mr.Rajendra Adhikary, Dr.Nar Bahadur Rajwar, Mr. Surya Prasad

Paudel,Mr.Devendra Yadav and Mr.Mahendra Prasad Paudel for their valuable and critical comments

and suggestions.

Special thanks are also due to Dr.Prushottam Mainali, Mr. Mahendra Paudel, Dr. Surya Paudel , Mr.

Chaitya Narayan Dangol, Dr. Megha Raj Tiwari, Mrs.Suneeta Sanjyal, Mr.Birendra Khanal and

Mr.Asit Rajbhandary for their valuable comments and suggestions to improve the accuracy of this

report.

v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The aims of this study are to determine the current status of the rangelands and identify the key issues

affecting the rangeland sector, identify driving forces which will impact on the livestock sector, and to

develop possible rangeland management plans and implementation strategies for the future. To

achieve the stipulated objectives secondary data were obtained from many sources. Suggestions

received from professionals and field workers are incorporated in this draft report.

There are clear linkages between human poverty and accelerated environmental degradation. Prior to

1983, there were very limited rangeland research and development programmes specifically targeted

to toward alleviating poverty and protecting the environment. Northern Belt Pasture Development

Programme and High Altitude Pasture Development Project played an important role in increasing

productivity of rangeland in high altitude regions . HLFFDP, since 1992, has played an important role

in mid-hill districts together with CLDP, both in the terai and mid-hills. Leasehold and community

forest lands have been developed by introducing suitable forage species which contributed to higher

livestock production and improvements in environmental conservation. Intensive and integrated

Chauri, Sheep, and carpet wool development programmes conducted in remote districts have

demonstrated positive income generation for farmers and improvement in rangeland management

conservation systems. However, the scale of these programmes need to be expanded to address

shortcomings in rangeland management and conservation issues on a nationwide scale. High animal

feed deficits, loss of palatable plant species from rangelands, low fodder and animal productivity, loss

of genetic resources, and invasion by poisonous plants are problems requiring urgent attention.

Improved public support services, such as increased research and extension sub-centres are required to

improve and support rangeland development on a larger scale, improve marketing of rangeland

produce, and achieve higher and sustainable incomes for farmers.

To address and alleviate most of the problems associated with rangeland, the Government of Nepal

has published Rangeland Policy-2012. Rangeland Development Committees (RDC) operating at grass

roots level will prepare the programmes with support from the District Coordination Committee and

endorsement by the Department Level Management Committee. These programmes will be executed

by RDC with technical and professional support from public and private sectors. In this way, simple,

affordable and sustainable programmes will be implemented in rangeland ,research, development and

management throughout the country

The Rangeland Management Plan will focus on land ownership and property rights, grazing

management, conservation of forage, nutrient management, introduction of suitable exotic grasses and

legumes, undesirable bush control, reseeding, integrating range resource inventory, preparation of

integrated research and development activities, proper site selection, construction of trails and bridges,

stock water development and development of range resource centers.

Implementation strategies will focus on areas such as restructuring of the livestock sector in context

with rangeland development, rangeland research & development, strengthening capacity building and

indigenous knowledge and value addition and marketing of products. Implementation of these

strategies will be through active participation of the communities to restore denuded landscapes and

by creating opportunities to diversify products and services for stakeholders.

vi

With the implementation of the proposed activities and its intensification within 10 years period of

ADS, the ownership will be rested with the Rangeland Users Group and integrated rangeland

resource improvement programmes will be conducted by all stakeholders under the Public Private

Partnership concept.1.50 % of the total rangeland area will be developed and improved (at present it is

only 0.60%). Vegetation coverage will be increased at least by 50-65%. Self-sufficiency in forage

seed and planting materials production will also be achieved.

Forage yield of Steppe rangelands is expected to increase from 1.0 to 1.5 Mt. ( DM/ha).Forage yield

of Temperate, Alpine and Sub-alpine rangelands will increase from 2.5 to 3.0 Mt. (DM/ha).Similarly

forage yield of Tropical-Subtropical rangelands will increase from 4.0 to 5.0 Mt. (DM/ha).Stocking

Density ( LU/ha) which is currently within the range of 7.34 - 34.0 times more than the actual

Carrying Capacity will be reduced to half. Transmissible diseases to and from wildlife to

domesticated animals will be controlled. Similarly loss of livestock caused by predators will be

reduced to a great extent.

Stakeholders of rangeland resources and professionals will be strengthened in skills and knowledge

through capacity building activities. Overgrazing will be reduced through construction of mule trails,

water stock development and by adoption of appropriate rotational grazing and forage conservation

systems. Invasion by undesirable and unpalatable bushes/ shrubs and noxious weeds will be

controlled to reduce animal mortality, through better crop management systems resulting in increased

forage yields and improved animal productivity.

Protection of rangeland, particularly of the steppe zone, will result in the emergence, increase, and

coverage of more valuable populations of edible plant species. This increase in productivity of

rangeland resources will enable herders‟ communities to adopt more commercial livestock

management practices thus improving household incomes of at least 6-8% per year. Sustainable,

affordable and adoptable technologies will be generated with the active participation of stakeholders

and will be disseminated for wider use covering a larger area. The trans-boundary issues for regular

use of rangelands of both Tibet Autonomous Region of People‟s Republic of China, and Government

of Nepal will also be resolved through mutual negotiation and consent.

1

1. INTRODUCTION

Background

Rangeland is recognized with potential for substantially improving the livelihoods of rural people and

a base for the development of the nation. Rangelands comprise an area of 3.326 million hectares and

constitute 22.60% of the total land area of Nepal (Rangeland Policy, 2012). This includes rangeland

areas of mountain, hills and terai plains, which support millions of livestock. The livelihoods of

pastoralists depend greatly on plants, water, animals and other natural resources found in the

rangelands. Rangelands provide habitats for a variety of wildlife, especially ungulates and large

grazing animals, which share rangelands with a host of birds and other mammals (including some

endangered species like snow leopards). The rich genetic diversity of wild and domesticated plants

and animals found in these areas is a valuable resource for improving livestock, developing new crop

varieties, curing disease, and providing numerous other benefits yet undiscovered. Above all, the

tourist industry in Nepal is based, in part, on the attractiveness of its rangelands‟ wildlife and

surrounding magnificent mountain landscapes (Dong ,et al.2007).

Rangeland or Grassland is as an open region of natural grassland on which the native

vegetation is predominantly grasses, grass-like plants, forbs or shrubs. It includes natural

grasslands, savanna, shrub lands, most deserts, coastal marshes and wet meadows. In contrast,

pastureland is a piece of land where introduced or domesticated native forage species are

planted for grazing purposes, receiving periodic renovation and / or cultural treatments such as

tillage, fertilization, mowing, weed control and irrigation.

Proper vegetation cover of the rangeland of mountainous watershed is important to reduce sediment

yield of the rivers flowing to the reservoirs. Proper management and utilization of rangeland will

contribute to improving livelihood and income generation opportunities for the people of different

ecological zones of the country. It also has historic and religious significance to the community.

Objectives

Ownership of rangelands rests with the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation (MOFSC), while

their utilization by local communities is associated with the Ministry of Agriculture Development

(MOAD). The Department of Livestock Services (DLS), and Nepal Agricultural Research Council

(NARC) have carried out rangeland development and livestock improvement programmes. Some of

the northern rangelands are located within protected areas under the jurisdiction of the Department of

National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC) and the National Trust for Nature Conservation

(NTNC). As rangelands are multi-sectoral because of their many uses, a distinct need was felt by

MOAD and MOFSC to jointly formulate rangeland policy and appropriate management strategies in

consultation with local communities. Thus the Rangeland Policy, 2012 was formulated by

Government of Nepal; to address the issues related to rangeland and integrate these recommendations

into the Agricultural Development Strategy (ADS).

The study focuses on following objectives:

i. To explore and recommend measures required to improve the productivity of Rangeland in

order to enhance the livelihoods of the rural people.

ii. To develop and recommend the measures to promote rangeland based industries and

entrepreneurial activity;

2

iii. To develop business models that will preserve the biodiversity and balance of ecosystems

along with the adoption by farmers of sustainable and scientifically proven uses of rangeland

and pasture management systems to improve lifestyles

Scope of the study

Rangeland research and development programmes have been given insufficient importance and do not

have clear objectives and well defined strategies. The functions of District Livestock Development

Offices, Livestock Farms and Fodder- Pasture Development and Research Stations, are ambiguous

and change frequently. Rangeland Research and Development Programmes have suffered from

insufficient trained personnel, lack of physical infrastructures, and financial support.

Despite lower priority and declining investment made in this sector, considerable research and

development works in rangeland management have been carried out by various government and non-

government agencies in the past. However, no formal thorough review on these past works have been

conducted by the government or by the non-government agencies in Nepal. In order to formulate and

develop sound research and development strategies of livestock development such review is a

prerequisite.

A comprehensive review of the past and current work in rangeland management and productivity will

help to identify and analyze the current status and effectiveness of research and development activities

and assess various factors involved against/or for a viable and productive research and development

system,to provide for a smooth implementation of Rangeland Policy, 2012 for the pupose of

sustainable development of livestock, as well as other biological sectors. The strategies recommended

to implement rangeland management plan formulated on the basis of rangeland policy-2012 will help

to meet the goals set by the Agriculture Development Strategy (ADS).

Methodology

The study is primarily based on desk reviews of available secondary information, workshops, and

consultation meetings. Secondary data were obtained from Livestock Production Directorate,

Regional Livestock Development Directorate of Central Development Region, Department of

Livestock Services, National Pasture and Animal Feed Center, Pasture and Fodder Division,

Khumaltar and Agriculture Research Station ( Pasture ), Rasuwa. Annual progress reports of the

above mentioned offices were collected for three years (2009/10, 2010/11 and 2011/12). Similarly

consultation was done with responsible personnel from the Department of Forest Research and

Survey, Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Nepal Agro-Forestry Foundation,

Dairy Development Corporation, and ICIMOD. Their suggestions and recommendations for the future

strategies of rangeland management plan and its components were obtained for preparation of this

report.

2. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF RANGELAND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

In the early 1950‟s cheese factories were established in central and eastern Nepal. Initial rangeland

development work in high altitude regions was started with the establishment of these cheese factories

for processing milk of female yaks (Naks), chauries and local cows ( LMP,1993).

Temperate cultivar evaluation cum forage production programme was launched in the Livestock

Development Farm, Singha Durbar in 1953 along with the introduction of exotic cattle breeds from

abroad. Exotic forage species such as perennial, short rotational rye grass (Lolium spp.) were studied

3

in mixtures with white clover (Trifolium spp.), as well as cocksfoot (Dactylis spp.). The performance

of these species were evaluated from 1953-1959. The objective was to introduce and promote the use

of these grasses and legumes to improve rangeland development.

In the 1960‟s, a FAO Pasture, Fodder and Livestock Development Project was implemented in the

Trishuli Watershed area with activities undertaken at Nuwakot and Rasuwa districts. The Pasture and

Fodder Development Farm was established in 1971/72 at Langtang valley (Kyanzing) to generate

technologies for use in high land rangeland development (ARS, 1988/89). In the mid-1970‟s the

Sheep, Goat and Wool Development Project was implemented by FAO and continued for a period of

eight years. This project undertook forage development activities in a number of locations; Northern

Karnali, Central Chitlang, Pansayakhola Sheep Farm, Bandipur Goat Farm, and Khumaltar Livestock

Farm.

In 1978, a Pasture Development Project was established at Khumaltar, with the following objectives:

grazing lands improvement, fodder development, fodder conservation, farmer‟s training, and fodder

tree development. Centuries old transhumance patterns in China and Nepal were disrupted due to

political changes in Tibet in 1959. In 1983, the two governments agreed to a transitional programme

where animal migration from both countries would completely stop by April 1988. In districts like,

Humla, Mustang, Sindhupalchok, Dolkha, Dolpa, Gorkha, Sankhuwasabha and Taplejung, there were

severe negative effects on the productivity of animals due to fodder shortage and intensification in

rangeland degradation as a result of the closure of pasture areas in Tibet. Overgrazing caused the

extinction of potential native grasses and legumes and the emergence of toxic weeds in some of the

rangelands, which ultimately forced the herders to leave the areas or VDC‟s in search of better

rangeland.

Realizing the severe impacts of such closure and the resulting disruption to transitional transhumance

patterns of animal grazing and the expected shortage of animal fodder, the Government of Nepal

initiated the Northern Belt Pasture Development Programme in 1983, focusing towards range

management improvement and fodder development in four “critical” districts: Humla, Mustang,

Sindhupalchowk, Dolakha, and six “emerging” forest/feed crisis districts: Manang, Dolpa, Gorkha,

Mugu, Sankhuwasabha and Taplejung. Programme activities implemented in these districts were:

pasture improvement through introduction of exotic grasses and legumes, promotion of feed

conservation methods, provision of animal drinking water, and irrigation facilities to open new

grazing areas. Silvi-pasture was established, combining fodder trees and improved forage species,

providing farmers access to previously inaccessible areas for livestock grazing. Northern Belt Pasture

Development Offices was terminated in 1992 and major research and existing extension activities

were incorporated into existing DLSO programmes.

Between 1980 and 1984, the High Altitude Pasture Development Project provided extension support

to Northern Belt Pasture Development Districts while the Himalyan Pasture & Fodder Research

Network supported research projects in Nepal, Bhutan, India and Pakistan. These two FAO/UNDP

funded projects supported district level pasture and fodder improvements programmes to ease the

fodder crisis.

The goal was to reduce poverty and restore degraded lands through access to credit inputs and by

providing technological assistance to poor farmers. Leasehold Forestry and Livestock Programme

(LFLP) is the continuation and extension of the Hills Leasehold Forestry and Forage Development

4

Project (HLFFDP), carrying out forage production and pasture development, livestock training and

services, and implementation of livestock support activities in 22 mid-hill districts.

The overall objective was to reduce poverty amongst the rural poor, reduce cost of production, and

improve management and productivity of the livestock sector in an environmentally sustainable and

socially equitable manner. Community Livestock Development Project (CLDP) has carried out

forage production and pasture development and extension activities in 44 districts since 2005.

3. AREAS AND DISTRIBUTION OF RANGELAND

Distribution of rangeland

It is estimated that 3.326 million hectares of land area usually referred as grassland and pasture area,

is considered rangeland. It includes shrublands and comprises approximately 22.60 percent of the total

land area (Rangeland Policy, 2012) (Table 1). About 94 % of the rangelands are situated in the hills

and mountain regions while only 6 % rangelands are in the Siwaliks and Terai regions of the country

(Table 2)

Table 1: Land use statistics („000 ha) of Nepal.

Description Area Percentage

Agriculture land cultivated 3091 21

Agriculture land uncultivated 1030 7

Forest 4268 29

Grassland and Pasture (including Shrubland, 1560) 3326 22.60

Water 383 2.60

Others 2620 17.80

Source : MOAC,2010/2011.

Table 2: Distribution of rangelands in Nepal.

Physiographic

Regions

Total

Land

Area

(000 ha)

% Rangeland

Area

(000 ha)

Shrubland

Area

(000 ha)

Total

Rangeland Area

(000 ha)

Rangeland

(%)

Terai

(Tropical)

2122 14.39 51.57 66 117.57 3.53

Siwaliks

(Sub-tropical)

1879 12.74 21.37 64 85.37 2.57

Mid hills

(Temperate)

4350 29.50 303.75 893 1196.75 35.98

High mountain

(Sub-alpine)

2900 19.66 526.27 389 915.27 27.52

High himal

(Alpine)

3497 23.71 863.04 148 1011.04 30.40

Total 1,47,48 100 1766 1560 3326 100

Source: MOAC,2010/2011;LRMP,1986;MPFS,1989.

Rangeland in the protected areas

The rangelands which are inside Protected Areas (PA‟s) are also the grazing lands for livestock.

Livestock are allowed to graze at specific times on a rotational basis. However, the population of

5

livestock has doubled and animals are also brought in from other districts for grazing which has

caused overgrazing and fragmentation of grazing land within the protected areas. Although the

protected areas constitute 28.27 % of rangelands,, there has not been a single Research and

Development (R&D) programme that has been successful in the last 25 years. However, in recent

years the protected area managers have prioritized preliminary studies on rangeland management. The

20 protected areas (PA‟s) cover 8079.07 km2 of rangelands or 28.27 % of its total area. (Table 3).

Table 3: Rangeland inside protected areas

S.N. National Parks

and

Conservation Areas

Physiographic Regions Total

Area

(km2)

Rangeland

Area

(km2)

1 Shey-Phoksundo National Park High Mountain/High Himal 3555 1234.17

2 Khaptad National Park High Mountain 225 16.27

3 Rara National Park High Mountain 106 11.22

4 Apinappa Conservation Area High Mountain 1903 655.58

5 Dhorpatan Hunting Reserve High Mountain/High Himal 1325 445.57

6 Gaurishankar Conservation Area High Himal 2179.5 750.83

7 Makalu-Barun National Park and

Conservation Area

Mid Mountain/High Himal 1500 646.32

8 Langtang National Park Mid Mountain/High Himal 1710 343.49

9 Sagarmatha National Park Mid Mountain/High Himal 1148 219.62

10 Kanchenjunga Conservation Area Mid Mountain/High Himal 2035 283.97

11 Manaslu Conservation Area Mid Mountain/High Himal 1663 572.90

12 Annapurna Conservation Area Mid Mountain/High Himal 7629 2,519.68

13 Shivapuri Nagaarjun National

Park

Mid Mountain 159 5.88

14 Chitwan National Park Terai/Siwalik 932 48.09

15 Bardia National Park Terai/Siwalik 968 2.93

16 Banke National Park Terai/Siwalik 550 189.47

17 Kosi Tappu Wildlife Reserve Terai 175 29.86

18 Parsa Wildlife Reserve Terai/Siwalik 499 .42

19 Sukla Phanta Wildlife Reserve Terai 305 55.39

20 Krishnasar Conservation Area Terai 16.95 5.83

Total 28583.45 8079.07

Source: District profile of Nepal, 2011.

4. IMPORTANCE OF RANGELANDS

Source of feed

Rangelands comprise an area of 3.326 million hectares and constitute 22.60 % of the total land area of

Nepal (Rangeland Policy, 2012). This includes rangeland areas of mountain, hills and terai plains

which support 21.13 million of ruminant livestock population (Yadav, D.P & etal,2011). These are

important sources of feed for domestic as well as wild ungulates. These are the main sources of

animal protein and mainstay of livestock industries. The contribution of the livestock sector to the

National GDP is 13% and to AGDP 27 % (MOAC, 2010/2011). Rangelands provide rich sources of

herbaceous vegetation. Many rare medicinal plants and herbs are found in Himalayan rangelands.

6

In 1993, it was estimated that the TDN requirement for ruminants population equivalent to 8.7 million

Livestock Units were 9.6 million metric ton while the availability was 6.1 million metric ton. A deficit

of 3.5 million metric ton represents an animal feed deficit of 36 %(Table 4) was reported (

Pariyar,1993).

Table 4: Feed Balance Sheet (TDN,('000mt) for Ruminants.

Eco-zones Requirement Available Balance (% with respect to requirement)

High hills 1239 911 -328 (-26.5% )

Mid hills 5176 2580 -2596 (-50.2 %)

Terai 3204 2642 -562 (-17.54%)

Total 9619 6133 -3486 (-36.24%)

Source: CBS, 1993; Pariyar, 1993.

Pariyar,(1993), further reported that the contribution from crop by- products was 47 %, forest 30 %,

rangeland including shrubland 12 % and 11% from Non-cultivated Inclusion(NCI). Contribution of

rangelands and forest resources increases, with the increase on altitude whereas crop by-

products/crop residues contribute more animal feed supplements in Terai and Mid-hills regions than

in the High hills ( Table 5.)

Table 5: Available TDN ('000mt) from various feed sources.

Feed Sources High hils Mid-hills Terai Total

Rangeland (Grazingland+Shrubland) 298

(32.50%)

380

(14.70%)

58

(2.20%)

736

(12.0%)

Crop byproduct 107

(12.0%)

981

(38.0%)

1783

(68.49%)

2870

(46.80%)

Forest 404

(44.0%)

753

(29.20%)

674

(25.50%)

1830

(29.81%)

Non-cultivated Inclusion 104

(11.50%)

466

(18.10%)

127

(3.81%)

697

(11.39%)

Total (Percentage) 911

(100%)

2580

(100%)

2642

(100%)

6133

(100%)

Raut (1998) estimated that the total Dry Matter demand from ruminants population was 21.9 million

metric ton while the availability was 15.8 million metric ton, a deficit of 5.12 million metric ton or

24.5 %.

The Agriculture Perspective Plan (APP-1995–2015) has considered that livestock sector growth is

crucial to meet its AGDP growth and poverty alleviation objectives. The APP target is to accelerate

the growth rate of the livestock sector to 6.1 per cent from 2.9 per cent at the base year, and increase

the livestock contribution to GDP from 31 to 45 per cent by the end of APP plan period. To achieve

this target APP has accorded the highest priority to improving the animal forage resource base, which

should concurrently follow the improvement in genetic quality of livestock. During 20 year plan APP

has projected that the demand for Dry Matter ( DM) for livestock raising will need to increase to

25.6 million MT from 18.0 million metric ton, which means massive efforts have to be concentrated

on the production of cultivated fodder and optimum management of forest and rangeland to make up

the projected animal feed deficit of 7.6 million MT. The contribution of cultivated fodder and pastures

toward meeting daily feed requirements of livestock will need to increase from 26% to 49% of total

daily animal feed intakes. (Sherchand and Pradhan, 1998).

7

Source of soil and water conservation

The northern mountain areas contain valuable watershed from important rivers. Vegetation cover of

rangelands increase infiltration, reduce run-off and erosion. Many studies have shown that erosion

losses were found to increase with a decrease in plant cover and increase in land slope . Proper

vegetative cover of rangelands within the mountainous watershed is important to reduce sediment

yield of rivers flowing in to the reservoirs.

Reservoir of genetic resources for biodiversity conservation

Rangelands are the reservoirs which possess enormous diverse genetic resources and are responsible

for conserving biodiversity. Of over 20 indigenous breeds of livestock species that are found in Nepal,

8 endemic breeds (40%) are from alpine region (Sherchand and Pradhan, 1998; Shrestha,N.P. 1998).

Over 840 species of birds are known to occur in Nepal and they exhibit highest diversity in tropical

and subtropical belt where 648 species are found. Only 413 bird species are reported to occur above

3000m altitude. Of these, only 19 species are known to breed in these high grounds. Nine species are

restricted to alpine rangeland of which 5 species have significant population in Nepal (Inskipp,C.

1989). Of Nepal‟s twelve-mammalian order, nine are known to occur in the rangeland. Some 80

species of mammals are known to occur of which 8 are major wildlife species, they are Snow

Leopard, Grey Wolf, Tibetan Argali, Lynx, Brown Bear, Musk Deer, Red Panda and Tibetan

Antelope. Of these 4 are endangered and vulnerable.

Some 246 species out of Nepal‟s 5160 recorded flowering plant species are endemic to Nepal. 131

endemic plants (Shrestha, N.P. 1998) are known to occur in subalpine and alpine rangelands. The

medicinal plants which are basically used for Ayurvedic therapy and have high values in allopathic

medicines as well. Of the 700 species of plants that have medicinal and aromatic properties 41 species

have been identified as key species of which 14 (34%) are known to occur in the rangelands.

5 MAJOR THREATS OF RANGELAND

Loss of palatable species

Tropical rangeland which is found up to approximately 1 000 masl and covers areas of the Terai and

dun valleys of southern Nepal contains dominant grasses such as Phragmites karka, Saccharum

spontaneum and Imperata cylindrica (Whyte,R.U. 1968). It also contains two metre tall Cymbopogon

jwarancusa and Bothriochloa intermedia (Stainton,G.B. 1973). Because of over stocking less

palatable grasses like Imperata cylindrica dominates throughout these rangelands and the weed

Eupatorium adenophorum is gradually replacing many of the palatable species.

Subtropical rangelands are between approximately 1 000 – 2 000 metres in Siwaliks, Mahabharat

range, lower valleys and mountain slopes in the lower Mid-hills. Much of the original subtropical

rangelands which had palatable species of grasses such as Arundinella bengalensis, A. nepalensis,

Bothriochloa intermedia, B. pertusa, Chrysopogon gryllus, Heteropogon contortus, are now infested

with Eupatorium adenophorum (banmara), Pteridium acquilinum (bracken fern), and Urtica

parviflora (stinging nettle) and Artemisia vulgaris, due to over grazing and regular burning in spring.

These rangelands are in poor condition due to poorly controlled and managed animal grazing

systems..

8

Temperate rangelands extend from 2 000 to 3 000 m. These rangelands are very important to pastoral

systems, but due to over grazing for years, palatable grasses such as Dactylis glomerata, Stipa

concinna, Festuca spp., Desmodium spp and Andropogon tristis, have been replaced by less palatable

forage species like Arundinella hookeri. In the warm temperate rangelands (1410-2450 masl)

Eupatorium adenophorum (Banmara ) and fern infestation is increasing rapidly and is replacing

palatable plants. In cool temperate rangelands (2450-3050) Poa annua, Poa alpigena, Phleum

alpinum, and Festuca are being replaced by less palatable shrubs of Artemisia, Berberis, Rosa,

Caragana, and Lonicera genera.

In the sub- alpine and alpine rangelands (3000-4000 and 4000-5000 masl) the shrub Pipthantus

nepalensis has invaded the previously productive rangeland dominated by Danthonia spp, Festuca

spp. Stipa spp. and, Bromus himalaiacus. Forbs of the genera Anaphalis distorta and Potentilla have

become more common as Danthonia is removed from the rangeland (Miller,D.J 1987).

In the past the alpine rangelands of Humla and Dolpa districts contained a far greater range of

palatable plants, for example, species of Stipa, Calamagrostis and Agrostis. But due to selective over

grazing for centuries the Koeleria rangelands now have a high percentage of forbs, mainly of

Anenome spp. and Iris spp, which make up about 25-30% of the vegetative cover.

The cool temperate and sub-alpine rangelands in Humla and Dolpa had high perentage cover of

palatable species, for example, Themeda triandra, Themeda anathera, Pennisetum flaccidum,

Arundinella nepalensis and Arundinella setosa. Overgrazing has caused the extinction of these grasses

and the encouraged the establishment of unpalatable specis, such as Cymbopogon,Bothriochloa and

Eulalia. Two legumes that were found belonged to the genera Indigofera and Lespedeza are only

sparsely distributed.

Serial changes within the climatic pattern of vegetation is dependent upon grazing intensity, burning

and cutting. Pure herbaceous stands, such as Carex and Poa within the forest are generally unstable

and negatively affected by grazing pressure. Under heavy grazing pressure Carex and Poa

communities revert to woody herbaceous weeds such as Cirsium, Senecio and Rheum species.

Excessive grazing will result in bare grounds according to Archer,A.C. (1987).

Invasion of poisonous plants

An acute problem of toxic plants in the Thodung rangelands of Ramechap districts were observed

where Anemone elogata ( Jukabikh),Chorophytum spp. ( Choto) and Pieris Formosa ( Bulu) were the

main toxic plants. Chorophytum spp. are rated as highly toxic in comparison to Anemone elogata and

Pieris Formosa. Chauries and goats die within a period of about two hours if they graze on

Chorophytum spp. No antidote was found to be known to the herders. It was further observed that

Chorophytum spp.was more fatal to new and young stock because they graze the tender parts of this

plant due to lack of selectivity of livestock in the beginning of its growing days. Chorophytum spp

.coverage on rangelands is increasing at a faster rate and herders demanded an effective programme

for its eradication. However, rarely any animal has died by consuming Anemone elogata and Pieris

formosa ,but it does cause production loss for some days due to bloating, and indigestion in

ruminants (Pradhan, S.M. and et al,2000).

In the temperate and sub-alpine rangelands ( 2000-3200 masl) of Rasuwa districts six types of

poisonous plant species , Murpha, Sinmurpha, Angeri, Dhade, Lekh gurans and Pra are found while in

the steppe rangelands in Mustang district two types of these poisonous plant species are found. These

9

species are increasing at a faster rate and their coverage is increasing day by day (Kandel,R.N.and et

al. 1989). In Muktinath, Jomsom, Kagbeni, Marpha and Chusang VDC of Mustang District, there are

many kinds of poisonous plants available in alpine rangelands and nearby forestlands where farmers

usually graze their animals (Tiwari,M.R. and Tamrakar, N.L, 2006). The most prevalent poisonous

plant is Dhukcha which is found mostly in summer ( Jestha-Asar) months ( Table 6). Shrestha, B.S

and et al. (2006) estimated that numbers of animals in the migratory flocks die due to poisonous

plants of Sikles, Guthigaun and Pipalchauri VDCs of Kaski, Jumla and Darchula districts.

Table 6: Farmer‟s perception on seasonal distribution of poisonous plants.

S.

N

VDC Jestha-

Asar

Baisakh-

Asar

Baisakh-

Jestha

Baisakh-

Bhadra

Other Poisonous

Plants

1 Muktinath 71.4 9.5 - - 19.1

2 Jomsom 84.6 - - - 15.4

3 Kagbeni - - 28.6 14.3 57.1

4 Marpha 50 50 - - -

5 Chusang 13.3 - - 20 66.7

Total 44.8 5.97 5.97 7.46 35.8

Source : Tiwari,M.R. and Tamrakar,N.L,2006.

Low productivity of rangelands

The productivity of rangelands depends on many factors and varies tremendously from one area or

region to another within the same ecological zone, even in the same year. Highest production of

major plant species is obtained during monsoon (June-September). Archer,A.C.(1987) estimated

forage production of natural high altitude rangelands of Humla and Dolpa at 0.65 ton DM/ha.

Alirol,P. ( 1979) estimated forage production in high altitude rangelands in Kuri ( Kalinchok region)

at 3.2 ton DM/ha and in Tuten at 3.5 ton DM/ha. In the rangelands of Tehrathum ( 2040-2150 masl) a

yield of 3.6 ton DM/ha was obtained ( Shrestha,N.P. and et, al. 1990).Out of 23 grazinglands surveyed

in Dhading district ( 88-1600 masl ), Pariyar,D. and Shrestha,R.P. (1992) estimated an average yield

of 0.79 ton DM/ha. Miller,D.J. (1987) assumed that from the rangelands of Myagdi 1.5 ton DM/ha

could be obtained from one hectare.According to Pande,R.S. (1994), productivity of natural

grasslands ranges from 0.5-1.0 ton DM/ha in Steppe grazingland, 2 - 2.5 ton DM/ha from alpine, sub-

alpine and temperate grassland, 1.5 - ton DM/ha from sub-tropical grassland and 3 – 4 ton DM from

tropical grassland ( Table 7).

Table 7: Dry Matter Yield ( Ton/ha ) From various rangelands

Rangeland

Type

Altitude

( masl)

Average temperature

(0c)

Average rainfall

(mm)

Ton DM/ha

Tropical <1000 20-25 >1900 3.0-4.0

Sub-tropical 1000-2000 15-20 1700-1900 1.50-2.0

Temperate 2000-3000 10-15 1500-1700 1.00-2.5

Sub-alpine 3000-4000 6-10 500-1500 1.50-2.5

Alpine 4000-5000 3-6 500-1500 1.50-2.5

Steppe 2450-5000 10-15 < 500 0.65-1.0

Overgrazing and high stocking rate

Due to uncontrolled and unregulated grazing of rangelands, productivity has decreased by more than

50 % of their potential. Most of the rangelands are over stocked, and are severely overgrazed. In 1981,

Rajbhandari and Shah estimated that in the steppe rangelands of northern Nepal, stocking rate (0.19

LU/ha) was much higher than carrying capacity ( 0.01 LU/ha). In case of open grasslands, the

10

stocking rate was 7.07 LU/ha against a carrying capacity of 0.54 LU/ha and for alpine rangelands

these figures were 0.64 LU/ha and 1.42 LU/ha for stocking rate and carrying capacity respectively

(Table 8).

Table 8: Productivity and carrying capacity of rangelands

Rangeland Area

(km2)

Productivity

(TDN. ton/ha)

Carrying capacity

(LU/ha)

Stocking rate

(LU/ha)

Subtropical & Temperate 6293 0.58 0.54 7.07

Alpine 10141 1.54 1.42 0.64

Steppe 1875 0.06 0.09 1.19

Source : Rajbhandari and Shah, 1981; TDN = Total Digestible Nutrient; LU = Livestock Unit.

A study conducted in the rangelands of Tehrathum district at an altitude between 1500-2900 masl,

have shown that the carrying capacity was 1.3 LU/ha whereas, stocking rate was 6.7 LU/ha (Shrestha,

N.P and Shrestha, P.,1991). They further estimated that in some areas of the eastern hills, stocking

rates came close to 8 LU/ha. In 1992, Pariyar, D. and Shrestha, R.P. (1992), estimated that the open

rangelands of Bhumisthan in Dhading district, carrying capacity was 0.31 LU/ha, where as the present

stocking rate is 4.08 LU/ha, 13 times more than its actual carrying capacity. Similarly rangelands of

various districts are also facing enormous grazing pressure (Khanal,B., 2011) (Table 9). It is believed

that if the trend of land encroachment for agricultural terraces in the mid and high hills is not stopped,

the carrying capacity in these regions would decline to a level of 0.42 LU/ha, and the stocking rate

would reach about 21 times above the actual carrying capacity.

Table 9: Productivity and carrying capacity of rangelands in 2009-2010.

S.N Name of District Productivity

(ton DM/ha)

Carrying Capacity

(LU/ha)

Stocking Density

(LU/ha)

1 Sankhuwasabha 21.5 4.15 34.0

2 Panchthar 0.99 1.66 16.3

3 Taplejung 1.73 2.88 7.34

4 Dolakha 0.47 0.79 8.0

5 Rasuwa 0.51 0.86 14.0

6 Sindhupalchowk 2.73 4.56 17.40

7 Bhojpur 0.87 1.45 25.0

8 Lamjung 8.85 3.09 31.6

9 Myagdi 1.0 1.66 26.6

Source:Khanal, B., 2011.

Loss of sheep and goat by predator

Predation, specifically by Leopard, has caused a serious loss in the number of sheep and goats of

migratory herd in the Sikeles village (in Annapurna Conservation Areas) of Kaski district. Predation

occurs throughout the year, but frequency is higher during winter, when animals are kept in the field

for in-situ manuring. In this context, solar lighting and nylon net enclosure system was found to be

successful in reducing predation loss in migratory sheep and goat flocks. Average number of sheep

and goats were 365 in the flock. Total predation loss was found to be 10.4 % (38/365). On an average,

one animal cost about Rs. 3000.0. Predation of 38 animals per year is equivalent to Rs. 114,000.00.

This is a considerable economic loss in the migratory flock in the context of present economic

situation in Nepal ( Joshi, H.D. and et al,2006)

11

Loss of ruminants by poor health care practices

Apart from feed and breeding management, the other important factor responsible for the productivity

in ruminants is herd health management. The disease problems commonly encountered during

summer season (March/April to June/ July) in ruminants are FMD, hematuria, parasitic infestations,

ingestion of toxic plants and infertility. Each year many ruminants die from various diseases that are

preventable if timely intervention could be resorted. There is a lack of veterinary services providers in

the high hills and himalayan regions of Nepal where yaks, chauries, sheep and goats are raised.

Herders in the high hills have to walk one or two days to reach the nearest veterinary service center.

Rugged terrain, harsh climate and remoteness of the high hills make it difficult to access and carry out

required animal health services. Majority of the farmers have been depending on traditional healers to

cure some diseases and the adoption of modern practices of herd health such as routine drenching

against internal parasites and vaccination against major economic diseases of importance are very

rare. Ecole and Joshi (2011) reported that heavy loss in milk and wool yield of high altitude ruminant

animals were due to non-vaccination and parasitic infestation.

Poor Socio-economic condition

The high altitude range environment is associated with low agricultural productivity, poverty driven

migration, limited education, poor health care facilities and less income generation opportunities.

Most of the work related to milking, chhurpi making is done by women only. Most of the time young

girls/women are compelled to live alone in an isolated shed with the animals, and school age kids also

seen frequently with chauri herds. Many of the working youth are abandoning their homesteads,

sometimes with all family members migrating to Kathmandu and/or India/Overseas to explore

alternative opportunities to generate more income. Therefore there is a need to create greater

accessibility, job opportunities, and invest more in infrastructure development to improve the

physical facilities for the inhabitants of this environment.

6. RANGELAND DEVELOPMENT

The High Altitude Pasture Development Project was implemented for a period of four years ( 1980-

1984). This project tested improved pasture species in the designated emergency districts of Humla,

Mustang, Sindhupalchok and Dolakha. Assessment of current and potential rangeland production was

carried out through reconnaissance survey in ten remote northern districts. Northern Belt Pasture

Development programme was supported with improved seeds of grass and legume species to

improve rangelands productivity of high altitude regions (Annex :-I ). A total of 2585 kg of grass seed

and 2033 kg of legumes seed were used for rangeland improvement which in total accounted for 767

ha. of rangeland development.

The Northern Belt Pasture Development Programme was implemented for a ten year period (1983-

1992). Programme activities included, pasture improvement through introduction of exotic grasses

and legumes, promotion of feed conservation methods, provision of animal drinking water and

irrigation facilities to open new grazing areas, silvo-pasture establishment combining fodder trees and

improved forage species, along with the construction of access trails to previously inaccessible

pasture grazing areas. Under the Northern Belt Pasture Development Programme over 41 drinking

water facilities and more than 39 mule trails were constructed.

Under the Community Livestock Development Project (CLDP) major activities for community forest

land improvement (establishment of perennial forage species and their seed production) were

12

implemented by 22 districts of mid-hills and by 17 districts of Terai (Annex :-II ). During the five

years period a total of 12,542 ha community forest land was developed using improved perennial

forage species e.g Nina stylo, Wynn cassia, Forage peanut, Paspalum, Mulato and Sumba Seteria (

Table :-10).

Table 10: Community forestland development by perennial forage species and seed production.

Pasture and forage

development

Unit 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 Total

Perennial forage

development in

community forest.

ha 1660 2900 3415 2902 1665 12,542

Summer forage

production

ha - 100 134 27 477 738

Winter forage

production

ha - 602 757 555 915 2,869

Napier set distribution No - 119,4016 1,083,033 1,977,027 1,149,504 5,403,580

Perennial seed

production

Mt. 5.0 3.3 4.2 8.5 8.5 29.5

Source : Poudel,R.P.,2011.

In the Terai and in Mid-hills district respectively, an average of 44 and 62 hectares of community

forest land per year per district was developed to reduce fodder scarcity (Table 11). In the high

altitude districts (Jumla, Humla, Mugu, Bhajang and Darchula) the Livelihoods Pilot Program for

higher altitudes was implemented. The focus was on the sowing of perennial rye grass, lucerne, and

some fodder tree species in limited areas.

Table 11: Area coverage by perennial forage species per year per district

Ecological zone Number of

districts

Total Community

forest area

developed ( ha)

Area

developed per

district ( ha)

Area developed per

district per year

(ha)

Terai 17 3763 221 44

Mid-hill 22 8779 399 80

Total 39 12,542 322 62

Source: Poudel,R.P. 2011.

Under Leasehold Forestry and Livestock Development Project (LFLD) major activities for leasehold

forest land improvement ( establishment of perennial forage species and their seed production) were

implemented for 22 districts of mid-hills (Annex:-II). During the projects three year period a total of

5385 ha leasehold forestland were developed with improved perennial forage species e.g Stylo cook

and molasses a ( Table 12). 4836.25 and 1831 kg of seed of Stylo and Molasses were used for this

work respectively. Planting materials (Amriso and Napier) and fodder tree saplings were distributed

in numbers , 571045 and 192000 respectively in all district annually. On per district basis per year 82

ha of leased land was improved using 220 kg Stylo, 83 kg Molasses. 25957 number of planting

materials and 8727 number of saplings were used to develop and improve leased forest land. With

forage development programme a reasonable amount of yield has been obtained in each site. On

average, a dry matter yield of 6-6.36 tons per hectare has been obtained which is reasonably good

yield from leasehold sites under the cut and carry system of management ( Table 12).

13

Table 12: Leasehold forestland development by perennial forage species

Pasture and forage

development

Unit 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 Total Per year Per

distrct/year

Perennial forage

development in

leasehold forest.

ha 1905 1685 1795 5385 1795 82

Stylo seed

distributed

Kg 4710 4962.5 4836.25 14508.75 4836.25 220

Molases Kg 1672 1990.0 1831 5493 1831 83

Amriso/Napier sets Number 10590 1131500 571045 1713135 571045 25957

Fodder tree

saplings

Number 210000 174000 192000 576000 192000 8727

Forage productivity Mt. 95272 94103 94687 284062 94687.33 4304

Forage

productivity/ha

Mt. 50 56 53 53 53 53

Dry matter

(DM)/ha

Mt. 6 6.72 6.36 6.36 6.36 6.36

Source : Annual Report of NPAFC ,2009/10,2010/11 and 2011/12 ,Annual Report of DLS,2009/10,2010/11 and 2011/12.

Pariyar and et al (1996) had reviewed the forage development activities for 1988/89 to 1992/93.

During this period 4,198,000 fodder tree seedlings, 479,000 sets of Napier were distributed. Similarly,

7,041 ha of rangeland improved and 3434 ha of winter and summer fodder cultivated. Similar review

done on the forage and rangeland development activities for 2007/08 to 20011/12 indicated during

this period 2,599,445 fodder tree seedlings, and 10,787,990 sets of Napier were distributed. Similarly,

20,022 ha of rangeland grazing land was improved inside the community forest and leasehold forest

in mid hill and terai regions, and 7210 ha of winter and summer fodder crops were cultivated( Table

13).

Comparisons between two five year performances, because of the High altitude Pasture Development

Project and the Northern Belt Pasture Development Programme, the rangeland area developed

between 1988/89 to 1992/93 was higher in high hills. Also the fodder tree saplings distributed was

higher by 62% in the same region. Between 2007/08 to 20011/12, . fodder tree saplings and Napier

sets distribution increased by 2252 %, grazing land area by 284%, and winter and summer fodder

cultivation by 210% respectively ( Table 13)

Table 13: Input and service provided in different agro- ecological zones during 1988/89 – 1992/93

and 2007/08-2011/12

Activities High hills Mid hills Terai Remarks

1988/89

–

1992/93

2007/08-

20011/12

1988/89

–

1992/93

2007/08-

20011/12

1988/89

–

1992/93

2007/08-

20011/12

Fodder tree

seedlings

1,359,000 153600 2,730,000 1616745 766,000 829100 Community

Forest/leasehold

Forest

Napier sets 53,000 1080720 342000 6416670 84,000 3290600 Community

Forest/Leasehold

Forest

Gazingland 6787 880 190 14164 64 4978 Community

14

(ha)

Forest/leasehold

Forest

Winter and

Summer

fodder (ha)

959 720 1397 4290 1078 2200 Dairy pocket

areas/private lands

Source :Adopted from Annual Reports of NPAFC and CLDP 2005/06- 2011/12.

7. OPPERTUNITIES FOR IMPROVING THE PRODUCTIVITY OF RANGELAND

Use of proper species

The potential level of productivity of steppe rangelands ( Mustang, Manang, Dolpa and Humla) which

currently produces 0.5 -1.0 ton DM/ha, can be increased to a level of 3.5 - 9.0 ton DM/ha with the use

of proper plant species, and with the cooperation of user‟s group for testing sites requiring greater

protection. Different temperate species evaluated in Marpha, Mustang, for three years revealed that

Trifolium repens cv.Redquin and cv.Ladino, Dactylis glonerata cv.Porto and cv.Currie and Medicago

sativa ( Lucern) c.v Southern Special produced forage at 8,8,11,3.7 and 3.5 ton DM/ha, respectively.

It was observed that better yields were obtained in the third year after establishment (Grela,A.1991).

In Jharkot, Mustang, 17 temperate species were evaluated. The highest yield of 3.8 and 3.5 ton DM/ha

were obtained from Agropyron intermedius c.v Dhae and Agropyron elongatum cv Carrison,

respectively (Grela,1991).Eleven temperate forage species were evaluated in Humla at Simikot ( 3000

masl),better establishment and higher yield was obtained from Trifolium repens cv. Khumal ( 6 ton

DM/ha) and from Trifolium hybridum( 6 ton DM/ha) ( Archer,A.C.1990)

The present level of productivity of alpine, sub-alpine and temperate rangelands which is estimated at

2.0-2.5 ton DM/ha can be increased to a level of 3.34-12.3 ton DM/ha with the use of proper species

and cooperation from user‟s groups. In Sindhupalchok at taringdanda, Phulpingkati ( 2800 masl),24

temperate species were evaluated .Out of them Lolium perenne cv.Prior, Dactylis glomerata

cv.Tammisto, Trifolium repens cv. S184 , cv. Menna and cv. Huia were highest yielding and produced

forage at 12.3, 11.7, 10.4, 9.2 and 8.5 ton DM/ha, respectively. Archer (1990) explained that the site

had high residual fertility.Normally,Lolium perenne would not be recommended for extensive

sowing,because of its need for high fertile soils. In Dolakha,Lamabagar ( 2100 masl) 17 temperate

forage species were evaluated.Production data included : Lolium perenne cv.Tyron (7.10 ton DM/ha)

Dactylis glomerata cv.Cambria (6.36 ton DM/ha) Festuca arundinacea cv.Dovey (6.45 ton DM/ha ),

Lolium perenne cv.Augusta (6.15 ton DM/ha), Dactylis glomerata cv.Apanui (6.47 ton DM/ha),

Lolium perenne cv.Prior (4.57 ton DM/ha ) and Trifolium pretense CV. Menna ( 4.12 ton DM/ha).

Similar types of forage species were evaluated in different districts under the Northern Belt Pasture

Development Program.The highest dry matter yield ( 5.68 ton/ha) was obtained from Trifolium repens

and Lolium perenne in mixture in Sankhuwasava district. In Manang district ( 3500 masl) Dactylis

glomerata yielded 2.36 ton DM/ha while in mixture with Phleum ptatense and Trifolium repens

produced 1.74 ton DM/ha .

Rangelands of subtropical zones (60-1700m) had potentiality for producing a yield of 3-4 ton DM/ha,

However, introduction of suitable species under the cut and carry system has given yields of 7 ton

DM /ha. Sylosanthes guianensis cv Cook has produced over 7 ton DM/ha under degraded rangeland

condition. The other prominent species were Molasses, Centro,Siratro and Desmodium.

15

Application of fertilizer

Pandey et al (1990) found that by the use of FYM @ 8 mt/ha as a basal dose to Rye grass and

Cocksfoot cultivars at Jiri, fodder yield was increased by 20 % compared to the non fertilized

conditions. Similarly, tiller density and the plant height were also increased due to manuring

(Table14)

Table 14: Effect of FYM on DM production and tiller density.

Description Farm Yard manure applied @ 8

Mt./ha.

Farm Yard manure applied @

0Mt./ha.

Ruanui Khumal Wana Currie Ruanui Khumal Wana Currie

DM Yield( Mt./ha) 12.5 7.40 6.50 3.6 10.1 6.5 5.9 2.6

Plant Density(Tiller/m2) 4512 1632 2608 1632 4192 1360 2000 1056

Plant height( Cm) 26.5 28.90 15.80 14.1 21.9 27.9 11.9 10.5

Source :Pandey et, al .1990.

Use of Irrigation

Moisture is the major limiting factor for the better establishment as well as the performance of the

natural vegetation especially of the herbaceous species. Irrigation of the rangelands could improve the

productivity. The DM production of the Medicago falcata in the irrigated orchard in Mustang districts

was found 2494 kg DM/ha compared to 93 kg DM/ha in the open rain-fed grazing lands at the altitude

of 3610 masl (Kandel,R.N. and et al. (1989).

Protection from grazing

In the Ghami Village (3740 masl), the biomass production in the open grazing lands was 76.8 kg

DM/ha whereas DM production within the fenced area was 158.0 kg/ha. The major plant species were

Pennisetum, Chrysopogon, Caragana spp and others (Kandel,R.N and et al. 1989). Similarly, Singh

et al. (1990), reported that within the three months period of protection from grazing , in Jumla ( 2800

masl), the total number of plant count was increased by 65 % in the open grazing lands. The total

number of plant was 1291 in the open area where as in the caged area plant count was 1976. Similarly

the green matter yield was increased by 76 percent (Table 15).

Table 15: Biomass production in caged and uncaged condition.

Description Caged Uncaged

Total number of plant species 32 24

Total number of plant 1976 1291

Green Matter Yield ( Mt./ha) 4.9 3.7

Source; Singh et al.1990.

8. FORAGE SEED AND PLANTING MATERIALS

Dairy farming especially around the vicinity of market areas are increasing in Nepal. Almost all dairy

animals are fed on straw based diet with high concentrate feeding resulting into very high cost of

production. Furthermore, due to the establishment of paper mills and wide use of dwarf varieties of

paddy, availability of straw has becoming more and more scare. Green forages are the cheap and

nutritious source of livestock feeding. It is reported that during the fiscal year 1990, about 1061 ha. of

cropland area was under forage crops; while 8961 ha. of cultivated land was under fodder cultivation

in 2010/11. To meet the year round supply of forage and to minimize the exploitation of natural

resources for feed production, intensive program on forage cultivation and extension is necessary.

16

Forage seeds and the planting materials are the basic inputs required to promote forage-based

livestock production system as a strategic approach to reduce cost of production. The annual demand

of forage seed for fiscal year 2010/11 was 208,304 kg with 149,101 kg domestic production, and

28.42 % overall deficit against annual national demand. Maximum deficit of forage seed is in eastern

region (48.22%) followed by far western region (42.30%) (Table 16). The remaining demand of seed

was being fulfilled from international market mostly India, and to some extent from Bhutan, China

and other countries.

Table 16: Forage seed deficit (%) and grass coverage (ha.)

Region Deficit (%) Grass Coverage (ha.)

Eastern -48.22 1888.5

Central -23.19 3366.5

Western -3.99 1448.46

Mid

Western -51.34 1136.75

Far Western -42.30 658.5

NPAFC 412

Total -28.42 8960.71

Source: Yadav,D.P.et.al,2011.

Of the total annual demand of 208,304 kg, maximum quantity of seed demand was for oat (151615

kg, 72.79%) followed by Teosinte (16610 kg, 7.97%), Berseem (10825 kg, 5.2%) and Stylo (10614

kg, 5.1%). The national demand, demand percentage and domestic supply is shown in Table 18.

(Yadav,D.P. and et.al., 2011).

Table 17: Demand and Supply of major forages in Nepal

Forage Seed National Demand (kg) Demand Percentage Domestic Supply (kg)

Stylo 10614 5.10 3761

Joint Vetch 6715 3.22 7453

Berseem 10825 5.20 4725

Oat 151615 72.79 119490

Vetch 5365 2.58 3870

Teosinte 16610 7.97 9710

Source: Yadav,D.P.and et.al.,2011.

The main species of forage under seed production are Stylo (Stylosanthes guinensis), White Clover

(Trifolium repens), Molasses (Melinis minutiflora), Joint Vetch (Microptilium atropurporeum), Oat

(Avena sativa), Vetch (Vicia sativa), Teosinte (Euchleana maxicana), Berseem (Trifolium

alexandrium), and Rye Grass (Lolium perenne). The main species of forage under cuttings/sets

production are Napier (Pennisetum purpureum), Amriso (Thysanolaena maxima), Mulato (Brachiaria

spp.), Forage Peanut (Arachis pintoi), Setaria. Overall, the annual report of fiscal year 2010/11 shows

that the forage cultivation was in 8960.71 ha of the land.

The capacity of seed production of research stations and farms are very low. Prominent seed

producing farms/stations within country produces quite small amount of seed annually which is not

sufficient to meet the growing demand (Table 18 ). Therefore, private sectors should be strengthened

on seed production through contract. There is a need to increase seed production of widely adapted

species in the different agro-ecological zones. Additionally, national seed quality standards, seed

17

certification systems, truthful labeling, storage, transportation and marketing guidelines are crucial in

this change context.

Table 18. Status and capacity of forage seed production ( Kg) by farm/station annually.

Types Seed production kg/ha/year

PFD-

Khumaltar

ARS-

Rasuwa

LDF-

Jiri

SDF-

Pansayakhola

YDF-

Syangboche

P&DSPF

Janakpur

PDSPF

Ranjitpur

PDSPF

Gaughat

Rye Grass 45 102 120 - - - - -

White

clover

6 - - - - - - -

Cocksfoot - 5 - - - - - -

Paspalum - - 67 10 - - - -

Seteria - - - 10 - - - -

Furcha - - - - 50 - - -

oat 1408 105 - 30 - 11,000 4700 4000

Vetch 13 - - - - 400 - 1667

Berseem - - - - - 467 - 1600

Teosinte - - - - - - 4000 2600

Joint Vetch - - - - - - 217 1500

Desmodium - - - - - - 117 -

Kudzu - - - - - - 217 -

Stylo - - - - - -- 250 413

Lab-Lab - - - - - - 100 -

Source : Annual report of DLP, PFD,ARS ,2009/10,2010/11 and 2011/12.

With the development of Resource Centers, CLDP and LFLP, within its working districts have

produced 29.5 Mt. of forage seed of perennial species and 6.7 Mt. (Stylo and Molasses) seed

respectively. Similarly Napier sets 5,403,580 in CLDP and 571045 in LFLP were distributed. A total

192000 fodder tree saplings were produced and distributed in LFLP. Domestic productions of seeds

are still unable to meet the growing demand. Thus the major limiting factor for the improvement of

forage production in Nepal are: i) unavailability of sufficient forage seeds, ii) poor quality seeds and

iii) ineffective resource matching of available forage seeds.

9. REVIEW OF THE RANGELAND RELATED POLICIES

In high hill and mid-hill regions, livestock farming is the main source of livelihood of people and

rangeland is the major basis for livestock production. Rangeland development and its proper

management is expected to contribute to livelihood improvement and food security of the people,

reduce internal migration and minimize the effects of climate change. But in absence of rangeland

policy there has not been any concerted efforts. For providing clear direction to manage uncontrolled

extraction or harvesting of rangeland resources like herbs and Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs),

to prevent the declining rangeland productivity and biodiversities due to uncontrolled grazing, to

minimize effects of climate change and environmental degradation, to evaluate their roles in carbon

sequestration, to promote entrepreneurship in tourism development, to develop rangeland based

enterprises and to conserve/ promote indigenous knowledge, skills, technologies an urgency of a

Rangeland Policy‟ at national level is realized.

18

Nepal Environmental Policy and Action Plan, 1993 (National Policies-2010) as a key policy initiative

has emphasized the need for sustainable management of natural resources with improved management

of livestock and rangeland. It has also focused specifically on forest and rangeland management. In

accordance with the Convention on Biodiversity, 1992 Forestry Sector Policy, 2000 has given high

priority in conservation of biodiversity, ecosystems and genetic resources to sustain livelihoods for

millions of people living in the various regions. This policy has also emphasized the need to improve

animal breeds in order to increase productivity and to control livestock populations to reduce demands

on feed supply. The Nepal Biodiversity Strategy, 2002 (National Policies-2010) has acknowledged

Indigenous Knowledge and innovations pertinent to the conservation of biodiversity. Ex-situ

conservation and securing Intellectual Property and Farmer Property Rights in context to biodiversity

conservation is ensured. This policy has also stressed women in biodiversity conservation. This policy

for the first time has given focus on need for a National Rangeland Policy, conservation of rangeland

biodiversity, pastoral development and management in the himalayas, forage development through

integrated management planning, participatory plant breeding, participatory variety selection and gene

banking to preserve genetic plant material.

National Wetland Policy,2003, has established ”Wetland Conservation Fund” for the required

financial resources needed for wetlands conservation and sustainable development. For the self-

sustainability of the development and expansion of irrigation service in the country, an “Irrigation

Development Fund” is established in Irrigation Policy,2003 (National Policies-2010) . Similar type of

fund arrangements “National Rangeland Development and Relief Fund” is provisioned in the

Rangeland Policy 2012.

National Agricultural Policy, 2004 has emphasized that target communities should be handed over

marginal lands, pastures, and degraded forests and waste public lands on lease in order to alleviate

poverty. It has stressed that the target groups will be provided with agricultural credits at concessional

rates by mobilizing the Agricultural Development Bank and other financial institutions. Focus is

given in the conservation, promotion and proper utilization of biodiversity through agro-forestry

system in order to improve the condition of degraded forests and natural reservoirs.

Although, The Nepal Biodiversity Strategy, 2002 (National Policies-2010) which for the first time

stressed on the need of National Rangeland Policy, three ministries of Government of Nepal, Ministry

of Land Reform and Management (MOLRM), Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation (MOFSC)

and Ministry of Agriculture Development(MOAD) have formulated Rangeland Policy-2012. These

three ministries are also closely concern to implement the strategies which will make this policy a

success.

Strength

Strong institutional mechanism

There are provisions for strong institutional coordinating mechanisms for the effective

implementation of the policy provisions. At the central level, the National Planning Commission

member looking after the agriculture and forestry portfolio will chair the national level coordination

committee. Similarly, the Director General of Department of Livestock Services will chair the

departmental level management committee. Likewise, the Local Development Officer, District

Development Committees will chair the district level implementation coordination committee in the

respective districts. The national level guidance committee and management committee will assume

the responsibility of formulating and revision of the necessary guidelines, and provide directives

needed for the effective implementation of the policy. Field level activities will be implemented by

19

Rangeland Users Committee with the technical and professional support by research, development

and private partners.

Problems and Threats are well addressed

The decline of biodiversity within the rangelands is due to increasing human activity and animal

population pressure, resulting in increased soil erosion from uncontrolled grazing, deforestation from

forest fires encroaching into rangeland areas. Herders lack the skills and knowledge of modern

rangeland management systems required to improve the sustainability of their livelihoods and provide

protection for the rangeland environment.

Lack of an institutional network for rangeland research and expertise, inadequate investment in

technology development, and dissemination of information to herders have led to a decline in the

standards of range management. Likewise, climate change induced by global warming has also

lowered the production potential and productivity of rangeland. Remoteness and isolation, lack of

resources, uncontrolled harvesting of rangeland resources ( forage, herbs ,non-timber forest products, water

resources, wildlife and ecosystem) and confusion on ownership and responsibility for rangeland

management, along with poor institutional linkages with rangeland communities and related

stakeholders, are major challenges to be resolved.

Strong public private partnership approach

Public policy can contribute toward providing greater protection for the rangeland environment, and

improving livelihoods for herders, through a public and private partnership approach and engagement

with local communities. A partnership approach is required to upgrade the priority status for

rangeland investment, increasing its productivity, developing and expanding rangeland based

enterprises, promoting and protecting rangeland biodiversity in a sustainable and scientific manner

that also caters for the interests of herders.

Weakness

The Rangeland Policy-2012, through its laws and by-laws has addressed all the aspects/areas for

rangeland development and improvement under its three major categorized policy headings. However,

three amendments in bylaws should have to be included;

(1) under Strategy and Working Policy (11.25), that instead of increasing grazing fees for rangelands

which has been heavily overgrazed, such grazing lands should be retired from animal grazing for

specified number of years.

(2) Protection of endangered species should be organized overseen by interested farmer community

groups and this process formulated and endorsed within new legislation for wildlife domestication.

(3) Inclusion of a member from the Ministry of Irrigation ( MOI) and Ministry of Energy ( MOE) on

the National Level Guidance Committee, Department Level Management Committee, and District

Level Coordination Committee.

10. PROMOTION OF RANGELAND BASED INDUSTRIES

Milk, dairy products (butter and cheese), wool, hides and meats are staple pastoral products for home-

consumption as well as for generating family incomes in mountainous areas. Pastoral productivity at

household level is found to be low due to poor pasture management, poor animal feeding and

malnutrition, and poor animal health care. Dong and et al (2007) revealed that the contribution of

20

pastoral products to total family income was 40, 90 and 30 % while contribution from Non-pastoral

products ( cash crops, vegetable etc.) was 60,10 and 70 % in Dhunche, Gatlang and Langtang

respectively. At present in Rasuwa district, border trading for daily necessities, clothes and electric

utilities from the Tibetan Autonomous Region of China and selling pastoral products, cash crops and

other products to local markets, contracted companies or middlemen (retailers) are found dominating

the pastoral marketing system. Both government organizations and NGOs are not involved in pastoral

marketing, and producers, consumers and sometimes investors/tradesmen maintain all the systems.

Illiteracy, poor access to markets, lack of marketing information and unstable or absent markets are

major problems facing the pastoral marketing system. Herders and farmers claim that the pastoral

economy and marketing system can be improved if more public support and investment were

provided, and if there is more involvement by NGOs.

The Department of Livestock Services conducted „Intensive Chauri Development Programme‟ in

Dolakha, Rasuwa, Ramechap and Myagdi districts, to support and improve household incomes of

herders/farmers. Introduction of improved rangeland forage species (Rye grass, Cocksfoot and White

clover), construction of mule trails, establishment of water facilities in rangelands, construction of

wooden bridges, support to establish a cheese factory, purchase of yak bulls for breeding, purchase of

cow, and implementation of internal parasite control systems were major community support

activities provided by DLS. These programmes resulted in increased production of nutritious animal

feeds, improved animal health, increased chauri population, improved milk yield, , and improved

access to water sources, Assistance was also provided for shed construction in the rangelands to store

feed and food and support herd movement between different grazing sites from temperate to higher

altitude razing sistes. The increase in milk production has resulted in an additional three private

dairies being established. During six year period ( 2005/06-2010/11), household income has increased

by 4.5% per year ( Annual Report, Directorate of Livestock Production 2011/12).

Department of Livestock Services has also conducted an Intensive Sheep Development Programme in

Mustang, an Integrated Sheep Development Programme in Darchula, Bajhang and Bajura and Carpet

Wool Sheep Development Programme in Dolpa, Mustang and Manag districts to support and increase

household income of the farmers. Introduction of improved rangeland forage species ( Rye grass and

Cocksfoot), construction of mule trails, wooden bridge and sheds, and mobile animal health services

were the major activities introduced to these districts. ( Table 19).

Table 19 : Achievement in Sheep and Wool Development Programmes

Activities Unit Quantity

Construction of dipping tank No. 2

Mule trail construction Meter 3500

Wooden bridge construction No 9

Repair of wooden bridge No 1

Purchase of Byanglung sheep No 185

Shed construction No 8

Rye grass ,white clover and cocksfoot seed distribution kg 1078

Mobile health service No. 6228

Wool processing training No. 13

Sheep husbandry training No 5

Source : Annual Report, Directorate of Livestock Production ,2009/10,2010/11 and2011/12.

21

11. FINDING OF THE STUDY

Solving the critical animal feed deficit is the biggest challenge facing rangeland in years to come.

Unless solutions are found and implemented livestock productivity will continue to fall and

environmental degradation will continue. A projection made by Raut,Y. ( 1998 ) has indicated that by

2016/17 the deficit percentage for Dry Matter availability for livestock will be 29.7% and continue

to rise unless investment in fodder and pasture development programmes are given higher priority by

Government of Nepal(Table 20).

Table 20. Projection of feed demand ( Dry Matter) and supply arrangements

Fiscal year Feed Situation

( Million Mt.).

Balance

Demand Supply Quantity

( Million Mt.).

% of demand

1995/96 AD ( 2052/53) 20.552 15.190 - 5.322 26.0

2001/02 AD ( 2058/59) 21.819 16.340 - 5.479 25.1

2006/07AD ( 2063/64) 23.016 16.910 -6.106 26.5

2011/12 AD ( 2068/69) 24.265 17.480 -6.785 28.0

2016/17 AD ( 2073/74) 25.622 18.010 -7.612 29.7

The level of manpower, budget allocations, and scale of developments programmes need to increase

substantially to overcome animal feed deficits, and to improve animal productivity and livelihoods.

At present low level of strength in seed and plant materials production is certainly another area to look

at for improvements in seed multiplication. Farms and stations are producing far below of their

potential. The present level of 28.42% annual seed deficit against demand will grow wider. Therefore

more seed research and resource centres, contract seed production, and CBSP programmes on a larger

scale are required. Farmers Group at Khumaltar produced 1030 kg White Clover ( Trifolium repens

cv. Khumal) seed in three years while Pasture and Fodder Division, Khumaltar produced 18 kg only

during the same period. Seed of perennial Rye Grass produced by Farmers Group of Rasuwa was

2750 Kg and Agriculture Research Station, Rasuwa 306 kg only during the same duration. The

research stations have very limited areas of land for seed production, where as farmers groups and

cooperatives have greater potential capacity to jointly cultivate and market seed on a much larger

scale. The pilot Farmers Groups established by the NARC Pasture and Fodder Division, at Khumaltar,

and by the Agriculture Research Station, at Rasuwa, are examples of participatory community based

seed production and seed multiplication and training systems that can be used to improve the

availability of agricultural seeds across Nepal and replicate new technologies to other communities.

The Grassland and Pasture area of the country is 3.326 Million ha. In the five year period (2007/08-

2011/12 ) DLS has managed to improve 20,022 ha. which is only 0.60 % of the potential rangeland

areas requiring attention. Therefore, much more attention should be given in increasing area coverage

and sustaining the productivity through RUGA. The current work of DLS is very much concentrated

in Community Forestland and Leasehold land particularly of subtropical conditions where protection

from grazing and cut and carry system prevails. The alpine and steppe rangelands which also have

larger areas for grazing, also need special and focused programmes to improve rangelands

productivity in future.

22

Table 21: Rangeland types and area coverage

Rangeland types

Area (000)

ha.

Percentage

Subtropical and Temperate 1144 34.4

Alpine 1843 55.4

Steppe 339 10.2

Total 3326 100

Sources:-Adopted from Miller,D.J,1987,MOAC,2010/11.

The rangelands inside protected Areas (PA's) are good grazing land for domesticated animals

however, it is also the source of diseases that are transmittable to domestic animals from wildlife and

vice- versa. Some buffer areas should be identified to enable grazing in protected areas while

reducing the risk of disease burden. Wildlife has been found to be a potential sources of FMD, rabies,

parasitic diseases, and are of common concerns.

12. MAJOR CHALLENGES FOR RANGELAND DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT

Changes in government policies

Despite the fact that indigenous practices, knowledge and strategies are vital to sustainable

development of rangeland resources and ecosystems, changes in forest policies and land-tenure can

cause detrimental interference to indigenous rangeland management. Over the past few decades,

government has been applying forest policies to rangeland management, and misuse of these policies

has undermined local people‟s initiative, roles and responsibilities in managing rangeland resources

sustainably. Various changes in governmental policies regarding the land-tenure system have greatly

influenced local people‟s orientation towards land use and management systems. It has also

influenced the traditional use rights, ownership and responsibilities and constrained local people

from practicing indigenous rangeland management.

Limited and uncontinued public services support activities.

In the past Department of Livestock Services through its Northern Belt Pasture Development

Programme initiated efforts to improve forage resources through the implementation of agronomic

and other physical developmental activities. These included sowing of forage seeds, application of

fertiliser, opening of inaccessible pasturelands through construction and improvement of animal

trails and installation of drinking water facilities for grazing animals. However, most of these

technical interventions for rangeland improvement were flawed for three primary reasons. First,

budget constraints prevented them from being extensively extended across the region and these

activities did not continue for a sufficient length of time to be effective. Second, these programmes

failed to recognize the existing indigenous pasture management systems. It was a top-down planning.

Third, programme was focused on exotic mono species sowing on a large scale and little attention

was given on native species selection and their promotion. For example, between 1970 and 1980,

reseeding of the temperature grassland in mid-hill and high hills areas (1700-3500 m) with white

clover introduced from New Zealand to improve forage productivity and quality. However, this

exotic plant became the dominant species in some of the rangelands and caused the serious problem

of bloating in grazing livestock.

23

Poor linkages among stakeholders

Although local communities do have well designed rules and regulations for rangeland management,

the interrelation between public institutions and NGOs involved in rangeland management is very

weak. Without public support and cooperation, local communities are very ineffective at disaster

control, starvation alleviation and risk mitigation, which may limit the development of indigenous

rangeland management. Involvement by local communities in national-level rangeland planning,

research and development are very limited.

Poor infrastructure and illiteracy

In northern areas, most herder communities live in remote, isolated mountainous areas where basic

infrastructure including transportation, schools, hospitals etc. are mostly unavailable. Similarly these

areas are characterized by higher degradation of natural resources, low agricultural productivity,

poverty driven migration, limited education, poor health care facilities and less income generation

opportunities. In most of the community rangelands the infrastructure facilities e.g. drinking water,

sheds for herders and young animals, conditions of trail, condition of bridges in river/rivulets is very

poor. Herders are very limited in their ability to adapt to global climate change and currently lack the

means to effectively participate in on-going national socio-economic development programs.

Limited access to media and public services makes it difficult for them to receive updated

information and to adopt new technologies from scientists and extensionists because of isolation and

poor communication. Most local people are not aware of the importance of improving indigenous

rangeland management practices due to their illiteracy and poor access to new knowledge. Under

such circumstances, promoting rangeland management by integrating indigenous practices with

modern technologies is still a long way off (Dong et al 2007).

Prevailing of kipat system in practice

Rangelands were under the control of some “elites” who were collecting grazing fees “Kharchauri”

from the herders. Introduction of Pastureland Nationalization Act 1974 has abolished the Kipat

system and freed the pasture lands from the control of Talukdars and Mukhiyas. This Act has

entrusted the responsibilities to local bodies for the conservation of pasturelands in their respective

territories. But still in some parts of the country, the Kipat system prevails ( Rangeland Policy,

2012).

Absence of basic information on rangelands

The basic information on the rangelands such as altitudes, aspects, area, vegetation composition,

biomass production, seasonality of growth and utilization, is virtually nil. This has hampered the

formulation and implementation of rangeland improvement activities at field level. The information

on feed value of native pastures and browse foliage is also lacking. For example some of the plants

contain anti-nutritional factors for example presence of tannin in oak foliage.

Deteriorating conditions of associated forests

Oak tree foliage is sole diet for the livestock especially during winter season. Most of the oak trees

are heavily lopped out and cease the ability to reproduce. A programme to promote the regeneration

of oak trees through protection of mother plants has been initiated but its impact and its success is

not yet apparent. Similarly, extensive rhododendron forests, especially above 3,000 m altitude, have

been burned annually to expand the pasturelands and to induce faster growth of pastures, which

threatens the existence of dwarf rhododendron forest as well as existing flora and fauna. Moreover,

every year herder cuts young trees to renovate their sheds, and to use as a cooking fuel for their

meals.

24

Overgrazing

Most of the herders keep large number of animals to minimize the risk from diseases and casualty of

animals. The average size of “Goth” (Herd) in migratory systems ranges from 200-300 heads of

animals comprising of 4-6 farmers/households. Larger herds are unmanageable and incidences

during transferring of “Goth” and grazing could be fatal: as the mule trails are too narrow for

travelling the larger herds. Therefore‟ this is another example restricting the effective management

of rangeland.

Inadequate research and extension

There is inadequate research work on native pasture production and management systems especially

in northern region. Similarly animal inbreeding has resulted in low milk meat and wool production

and productivity. Awareness towards the improved forage cultivation practices has been created,

however, due to shortage of budget development, implementing programmers on a larger scale has

not occurred. Most herders have little access to veterinary services, credit facilities, cold

storage/chilling centers. Farmers and government staff do not get proper training in pasture

production and livestock management. In addition, there is shortage of technical staff in the field of

pasture and fodder development. Improvements of rangelands are expensive and time-consuming

programmes. Promotion of on-farm forage production and the renovation of the native pasturelands

requires a huge quantity of seed and planting materials.

Limited programme for product diversification

Chauri are mainly used for milk and sheep/goats for meat purposes but most of the farmer‟s milk

sheep and goats and consume locally and/or convert into curd or ghee (generally not for sale and no

market outside).

Poor socio-economic condition

Most of the work related to milking, “Chhurpi” making are done by women. Most of the time young

girls and women are compelled to live alone in an isolated sheds with the animals, and school age

children are also seen frequently with chauri herds. Most of the working youth are abandoning the

homestead, sometimes with whole family members either to Kathmandu and or India or overseas to

explore the alternative opportunities for more income.

Encroachment of rangelands Encroachment of rangelands for personal use has been increasing recently. The high altitude

rangelands around the vicinity of the villages are gradually converted into orchard and or crop-fields.

It was estimated that about 10 % of the community lands are annually used for this purpose in Jumla,

Dolpa and Jajarkot districts (Pande, R.S. 1994).

13. RANGELAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

Rangeland management is the science and art of optimizing the net returns from rangeland in most

desirable combinations suited to local communities. In Nepal, rangelands are required to be managed

for multiple uses. Forage for livestock and wild animals, water for reservoirs, habitat for wild animals,

recreation for people, and plants for medicinal use are some of the major functions of rangelands.

25

Guiding principles and justifications

The guiding principles of rangeland improvement should be the environmental capability and long-

term sustainability. The implementation of rangeland development programme must not only be based

on profitability for herders, but must also consider the effects of the proposed development on soil

conservation and animal welfare. It has to be looked upon as a means of retaining a way of life for the

herders rather than just the profits that keep them farming. The conservation of assets, particularly the

primary asset, soil, is also important. The improvement of highly eroded lands and poor soils (steppe

rangelands) may require substantial financial investment and may not always be profitable to herders.

However, substantial technological and financial support for such investment could be justified in

terms of the conservation of land, the prolongation of the effective life of the water heads and

catchment areas which are highly vulnerable to erosion and silting.

Land ownership and property rights

To bring any change in present grazing systems, a systematic survey is essential to determine exact

areas of grazing lands, and a detail review of land tenureship arrangements which differ from place to

place. Ultimately it should aim to allocate winter grazing lands on permanent ownership basis to

herders in order to facilitate fodder conservation systems, and allocate summer pastures on long term

leases to individuals or a group of herders based on the present status of the use of each site. Once the

information on area and ownership is established, institutions under MOAD and MOFSC in

collaboration with community organizations to oversee the proper use and maintenance of grazing

lands. The formation of Rangeland User Group Association ( RUGA) for different rangelands to

oversee the timing and duration of grazing, management and maintenance of the pastures, control of

stock numbers etc. should be given priority. This is not a new concept but with the support of public

institutions and with their legal support it will be remedial measures in the area where rangeland

improvement system exists in loose form. Rangeland Policy-2012 should aim to remove uncertainty

concerning land ownership of grazing lands. It needs to be resolved in favor of vesting more

responsibility with herders. This is the prerequisite for any success in the improvement measures

which is wisely included in Rangeland Policy-2012. The leasing systems need to be revised and

regularized, and complimented by an appropriate in-built grazing right distribution and utilization

system. Selected winter grazing lands should be allocated to an individual herder or a group of herders

on private ownership basis if the benefits from improvement measures are to be reaped. Such a

delineation of property rights would have a long lasting impact on the future sustainable use of

rangelands for farming as well as the conservation of biodiversity.

Grazing management

Due to uncontrolled and unregulated grazing rangelands productivity has decreased by more than 50%

of their potential. This deterioration of rangeland has adverse effects on forage production and

livestock industry. In addition, the subsidiary role of rangeland as watershed, wildlife habitat, herbal

medicine and environmental improver is also hampered. This has ultimately resulted into economical,

physical, hydrological and biological imbalance of the rangeland improvement. Introduction of

appropriate measures to control grazing within the natural limits of the rangelands will be crucial in

halting degradation of rangelands. Protection from grazing is the cheapest means of range recovery

and reclamation. Studied have shown that protection from grazing alone has the potential to increase

herbage biomass and ground cover. Similar results were obtained from alpine rangelands in Pakistan

where Mohammad ( 1986) reported that one-year closure resulted in four times forage yields. Rafi (

1965) recommended a minimum period of five years of complete protection before initiating proper

grazing management practices. By providing resting or closing of the natural grazing areas through

fencing the relative plant density and the productivity of the pastures increased significantly. For

26

example in the Ghami Village at an altitude 3740 masl, the biomass production in the open grazing

lands was 76.8 kg DM/ha whereas DM production within the fenced area was 158.0 kg/ha. The major

plant species were Pennisetum, Chrysopogon, Caragana spp and others (Kandel et al. 1988).

Similarly, Singh et al.1990 reported that within the three months period of time in Jumla areas at 2800

masl the total number of plant count was increased by 65 % in the open grazing lands. The total

number of plant was 1291 in the open area where as in the caged conditions the total plant count was

1976. Similarly the green matter yield was increased by 76%.

The formation of RUGA for each of the major summer and winter grazing areas should be the

triggering point for improvement. RUGA should be entrusted with overseeing the number of animals

per herd, the movement of animals in and out of rangeland at prescribed times, participation in range

improvement measures and the collection of grazing fees on an annual basis. The MOAD and

MOFSC should have the major roles to advise and monitor the functions of the RUGAs. The

allocation of grazing rights to individuals must be based on carrying capacity of each site.

Conservation of forage

Improvement of fodder conservation through establishment of high yielding hay meadows in winter

rangeland will greatly facilitate grazing management, and reduce pressure on winter grazing grounds.

To make such schemes successful, construction of hay barns with local materials so animals can be

fed with hay in feedlots near the camps, and would reduce pressure on the limited area of exposed

meadows following snowfall. Silage making will be done in sub-tropical and warm temperate zone

where stall feeding and sedentary systems are in practice for livestock rearing. On farm fodder

production establishing high yielding forage crops for silage and hay making will be done in these

areas

Nutrient management

It is apparent that improvement of the soil nutrient cycling would result in the increase in biomass

production and range condition improvement. Thus improving nutrient inputs into soil such as

reduction of dung removal through better crop husbandry practices and alternative sources of fuel

needs to be given priority. Better distribution of dung on the pastures from stock camps needs to be

advocated. Application of fertilizer in the existing pastures is the effective and quick means to

improve the productivity and vegetation composition of the natural rangelands. But in the Nepalese

context the use of fertilizer especially on pastures will be highly costly and uneconomical. Most of the

rangelands of Nepal are low in Nitrogen fertilizer. By the use of Nitrogen fertilizer the productivity of

the grasses species could be tripled. Grasses are more responsive to nitrogenous fertilizer application

compared to the legumes or forbs. For legume species inoculation and the use of phosphate fertilizer

is recommended. Pandey et al (1990) found that by the use of FYM @ 8 mt/ha as a basal dose to Rye

grass and Cocksfoot cultivars at Jiri condition the fodder yield was increased by 20 % compared to the

non fertilized conditions. Similarly, tiller density and the plant height were also increased due to

manuring. Regular monitoring of the status of nutrients in the soil will be required in managing the

soil fertility. Chemical soil analysis ,soil testing is a comparatively rapid and inexpensive procedure

for obtaining information on nutrient availability in soils as a basis for recommending fertilizer

application.Fertiliser trials in different locations would be required to test the information gained from

the soil analysis.

Introduction and establishment of potential native and exotic grasses and legumes

Studies have shown that legume component in rangeland are negligible in number and coverage.

Therefore in the past oversowing of high hill rangelands were done by White Clover ( Trifolium

27

repens). In open rangelands, where there was no animal control, the clover was unable to reach its full

potential because of constant defoliation. In such situation it was producing less than 500 kg

DM/ha/year ( Archer, A.C. 1990). Incorporation of the legume such as clover in the natural

rangelands, not only increases the productivity and the quality of the pastures by supplying more DM

and improving the nutritional quality, it also improves the soil fertility level through fixing

atmospheric nitrogen. The principal grasses introduced into the cool temperate zone has been Rye

Grass ( Lolium perenne), and Cocksfoot ( Dactylis glomerata). Oversowing in open rangelands have

very limited success, as it was unable to establish itself because of overgrazing. Low fertility soils

were a further factor contributing to the poor performance of ryegrass in some localities. Improvement

of rangelands through the use of potential native pasture species will be given high priority.

Undesirable bush control

Some of the rangelands, due to overgrazing, are fully covered with undesirable and unpalatable

bushes/ shrubs and noxious weeds. Once the shrubs are established it becomes a costly operation, with

hand tools or application of weedicides to maintain and extend the rangeland. In the high precipitation

districts, a combination of infertile soils and overgrazing encourages intensive weed competition.

Thus removal of undesirable and non-palatable species from rangelands is the most important step

towards range improvements. Eradication of such shrubs and noxious weeds provides a chance for the

desirable species to flourish and utilize the available nutrients. The bush free rangelands provided five

times more fodder compared to the bushy rangelands. If the area is located on a slope the bushes and

the shrubs should not be exposed at once. Otherwise the topsoil will be washed away due to increased

run off. The undesirable shrubs of the sloppy areas should be removed in strips, gradually. However,

in semi-arid rangelands particularly in Mustang where bushes of Caragana and other species are

found in scattered manner in such areas these bushes have protected seedlings and are responsible to

shelter for establishing seedlings from constant winds (Basnyat,1989). Evidence from the United

States show that prescribed burning results in effective decrease in competition from shrubs, shrub

cover, stem densities of shrubs, improved access to forage and better grazing distribution by livestock

rather than remaining along the trails ( Cook et al. 1994). Success of burning depends on willingness

of resource managers to under stand and appreciate the importance of fire in maintaining a desired

ecosystem. In one study in the United States, the total herbaceous current year‟s production averaged

2.2 times higher on the burns compared to control until third year( Cook et al. 1994). Shrub cover

declined between 35-50 % of pre-burn levels. Proper burning significantly increased crude protein of

herbs in all years and sites sampled, the protein content on the burns averaging 60% higher than

control.

Reseeding

Re-seeding is an aid to natural seeding. In the context of livestock production, various types of grasses

and legumes are the basic product of rangelands. Most of the grasses and legumes found in the

rangelands are self-regenerating and self-maintaining vegetation. In addition to in-situ vegetation

there are some high yielding and potential forage species available for higher yield production.

Because of these properties of rangeland vegetation, improvement is possible with proper

management and conservation measures. Reseeding should, however, be carried out by local species

as far as possible and discriminate use of exotic legumes and grasses except in the hay meadows

where higher yielding exotic species can be used less discriminatorily. Appropriate mixture of grasses

, legumes and herbs should be used in the seed mixture for such purposes.

28

Integrated range resource inventory

It is paramount importance to understand the present condition and composition of vegetation cover

and actual productive potential in relation to existing environmental condition. It is also important to

investigate properly, the potentialities of different types of rangelands, effective pasture management

strategies and plan followed by the user‟s group at present and past utilization of range vegetation,

taking into consideration sociological aspects, to form a basis for implementing sound conservation

systems for managing rangeland resources. Thus the survey team will consist of personnel from

Department of Livestock Services (DLS), Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC), Department

of National Park and Wildlife (DNPWL), Department of Soil Conservation and Watershed

Management (DSCWM), Department of Plant Resources ( DOB), Department of Forest Service, and

Department of Forest Research and Survey (DFRS), before finalizing the rangeland management

practices for including into their annual programmes.

Integrated research and development activities

Integrated research and development programmes have to be formulated with the active participation

of all the stakeholders at grass root level. RUGA and the community taking the lead role for

programme implementation. Other partners from MOAD, MOFSC, NGOs and CBO will play a role

as facilitators. A bottom up planning and implementation arrangements is vital to make multi-sectoral

programme successful.

Site selection for rangeland-livestock improvement For conducting range improvement practice, proper selection of each site is very important. Areas

with steep slopes and waterlogged condition should be avoided. Moreover the animals should not

have to cross streams or rivers to reach the rangeland, where sometimes the flow of water or flood do

not permit the animals to reach the site. If that is the case bridges should be constructed before range

management practice is launched. The selected sites should be accessible to the livestock. The

rangelands should be easily accessible by the grazing stock. There should be proper trails for easy

access and bridges to cross the river and rivulets.

Construction of trails and bridges To avoid overgrazing to a particular rangelands development of access routes to graze virgin

rangelands is very important. It is estimated that over 40 percent of the rangelands of high altitude

regions are inaccessible and they are the source of seed dissemination to various rangelands. This

would be most critical in the sub-humid and semi-arid regions where source area for reseeding are

essential to maintain and expand the already denuded plant cover.

Stock water development

Drinking water requirements of animals depends upon season, climate and available forage. A good

distribution of water points over the rangeland helps in proper animal distribution and forage

utilization. The source of water for animals is only streams or lakes. In high altitude regions there are

no artificial facilities provided for livestock. Most of the vegetation near the watering source is

severely grazed and degraded. In the future programme, rain water harvesting,snow-melt water

collecting techniques, construction of reservoirs, earthen dams, ponds, wells and installation of wind

mills or pumps in arid and semi arid areas should be done.

Range resource center establishment

To meet the domestic demand of seed and plant materials establishment of resource centres are of

paramount importance. High quantity seed and plant material producing sites, suitable for each eco-

29

zone in each district need to be done, and Resource Centers should be established to meet the soaring

demand. These centers will also be the focal points for providing quality seed (Seed bank) and storing

them for future use (Gene bank).

Fodder bank center establishment

To support and make feed available to livestock during emergencies and acute feed deficit situation.

14. GOVERNANCE AND COORDINATION MECHANISM TO IMPLEMENT

RANGELAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

The local institutions will play relatively important roles in rangeland governance at the grass-root

level. The various User Associations such as a livestock association, crop association, forestry

association and lodging (tourism) association can ensure the integrated use of different resources

related to rangeland management. Generally, the Community Committees control and regulate access

to pasturelands and fodder resources through enforcement of well defined and mutually agreed upon

rights and rules, backed by various social controls and sanctions. It also promotes relatively equitable

access to the resources for all members of the community, including poorer and socio-politically

weaker individuals and also enforces primary rules and regulations concerning rangeland resource use

regarding when and how long the livestock are grazed, and when and where hay may be cut for winter

feed.

Local institutions (at both group and community levels) will be responsible for promoting economic

and social development and contributing to the democratization of the economy, society and policies

related to rangeland management. These local institutions will have support and cooperation from

research institutions, universities, Non-government organizations (NGOs) and other professional

organizations at various (local/district/regional/national) level to transfer technical support,

professional consultations and other public services to community members either through local

NGOs or directly to user groups (associations).The role and responsibility of public sectors will be

supportive but valuable and vital. This „bottom-up‟ decision-making process and activities

implementation combined with „top-down‟ policy implementation in local rangeland governance, has

been foreseen to support community-based management of rangeland resources.

The coordination mechanism for effective implementation of the rangeland management plan will be

through different committees at various levels. There will be two committees at national level, one at

district level while the fourth one at VDC (Local rangeland users committee). The Project

Coordination Committee referred as Guidance Committee will look after overall progress and will

have major responsibility to bring coordination among stakeholders. This committee will have major

responsibility in execution of laws and bylaws and if need will make amendment to this. Major

discussion will be taken by this committee. However, the PWGC which is referred here in RP as

Department Level Management Committee will have consent from the stakeholders on rangeland

improvement and management actions plans for its final approval. It will also look at the share of

each stakeholder in preparation and execution criteria‟s. At the district level, District Coordination

Committee will bring coordination among all the partners through their active participation in annual

programme preparation. It will also closely look at the proposed targets and achievement and its

relevancy for the district. However, the programme will be prepared jointly by the stake holders who

are the real utilizers of rangeland resources at local level. The rangeland group association, livestock

association, forest association, private sectors, community and leasehold forest users association and

others will participate in bottom-up planning.

30

15. IMPLEMENTATION MODALITY, STRATEGIES AND PRIORITY ACTIONS .

National Land Use Policy-2012 ( NLUP) is formulated by Ministry of Land Reform and Management

while Rangeland Policy-2012 (RP) is formulated jointly by Ministry of Land Reform and

Management, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation and Ministry of Agriculture Development.

NLUP is much more concerned with the utilization of land resources according to its category while

RP is much more concerned with production, conservation and utilization of rangeland resources

(forage, herbs ,non-timber forest products, water resources, wildlife and ecosystem).Both the

government policies have focused on the promotion of valuable herbs, medicinal plants, livestock and

rangeland improvement in high altitude regions.

The laws and by-laws under NLUP are very much concerned on proper land utilization. Agriculture

land should not be used for other purposes giving stresses on commercialization of agriculture sector

including promotion in the livestock sector and rangeland management. It has also stressed on

cultivation of crops according to its land capability status. Unlike in RP in NLUP the bylaws states

that forest will cover a land area of 40% of the country .It has very clearly indicated the basis and

utilization criteria for area under agriculture, settlement, commercial, industrial and forest where as

RP is exclusively concerned with areas under rangeland and shrubland. However, both the

government policies have given importance to the protection and conservation of wetland, national

parks, protected areas and rangelands in particular.

Implementation modality

There are two successful projects implemented by Government of Nepal. Hills Leasehold Forestry

and Forage Development Project (HLFFDP) and Community Livestock Development Project (

CLDP).The modalities should be followed to implement the strategies and activities for rangeland

development and management. To meet the set forth goal by Agriculture Development Strategies for

overall development of agriculture sector, the concrete strategies and action plans presented (Table-22

and 23) are exclusively for rangeland and livestock development and management in order to meet the

objectives put forward by Rangeland Policy-2012. Actions plans conducted under these successful

models will meet themes of Agriculture Development strategies set for natural resources improvement

and its conservation.

Rangeland User‟s Group Association ( RUGA) and communities will formulate programmes as per

the demand of the community with the support from all the stakeholders ( VLAT, DLAT, VDC etc)

and will also implement the activities after its endorsement from all bureaucratic processes from

district to central level. District Livestock Services Offices ( including its sub-centers) and NGO‟s

will have responsibility to undertake district level activities involving community awareness building,

social mobilization, gender awareness, group formation, livestock productivity improvement, farmer

training, community based livestock development assistance, monitoring and evaluation. Regional

Directorates ( DLS), will have a role as facilitating authority ( Regional level) and will coordinate,

supervise, implement selected activities, and monitor and evaluate activities. Directorate of Fodder

and Pasture Production will (i) assist in preparation of annual work plans with other service providers,

(ii) supervise all project activities and the performance of the implementing agencies and service

providers (iii) monitor and evaluate activities, outputs, and expected outcome/impacts.

31

Implementation of rangeland development programmes through active participation of community

will bring great change in restoring denuded landscape and will create opportunities to produce a

more diverse range products and services for stakeholders.

Similarly a balanced role of public and private sectors participation is vital to achieving the overall

goals for rangeland development. In this context, the following strategies and priority actions have

been identified for strengthening rangeland and livestock development programmes (Table :-22).

32

Table 22: Strategies and priority actions, time frame and responsible organization for rangeland development and management

Strategies Priority Actions Time frame Responsible organizations

1. Restructuring of livestock

sector in context with

rangeland development.

1.1 Establishment of Directorate of Fodder and Pasture Production Immediate MOAD

1.2 Determine the area specific programme for Rangeland development with

stakeholders.(multi-sectoral programmes should be built -in in their annual

regular programme).

Immediate DLS,NARC,DOFS,DFRS

DSCWM,DNPWC,DOPR

1.3 Develop guidelines for technology dissemination and environment

conservation.

Immediate MOAD,DLS,NARC

1.4 Develop linkages with institutions related to rangeland development. Immediate DLS,NARC

1.5 Regulate and monitor National Rangeland Development and Relief Fund for

over all multi-sectoral area specific development.

Immediate DLS

1.6 Develop linkages with relevant institutions in order to include rangeland

management in forest action plan.

Short-term MOAD,DLS

1.7 Develop guidelines for easy access of loan flow from financial institute to

stakeholders.

Short-term MOAD,DLS

1.8 Guarantee Intellectual Property Rights/Patent Right of the valuable range

products.

Short-term DLS,NARC,DOFS,DFRS

DSCWM,DNPWC,DOPR

1.9 Registration of Nepalese Indigenous Knowledge, Skills & Practices related

to genetic resources.

Short-term DLS,NARC,DOFS,DFRS

DSCWM,DNPWC,DOPR

1.10 Develop mechanism to solve trans-boundary issues for regular use of

rangeland of Tibet Autonomous Region of People‟s Republic of China.

Medium and

Long-term

MOAD,MOFA

2. Prepare and implement

effective plans and

programmes to upgrade the

status of the rangelands and

thereby increasing its

productivity

2.1 Conduct an inventory of rangelands in the country assessing its status in

terms of biomass, species composition, carrying capacity and stocking rate .

Short-term DLS,NARC,DOFS,DFRS

DSCWM,DNPWC,DOPR

2.2 Identify and evaluate suitable forage species ( native and exotic) and

varieties for rangelands development and promote their use.

Short and

Medium-term

NARC,DLS

2.3 Identify toxic, poisonous and invasive plants and initiate effective control

measures.

Short-term NARC,DLS,DOPR,DFRS

2.4 Campaign advocacy through educating RUGA and other User‟s group for

recycling of nutrient and use of optimal use of fertilizer (Minimum Tillage

Practices and use of basic level of fertilizer).

Medium-term NARC,DLS

2.5 Promote suitable forage species under silvi/horti-pastoral system thus

ensuring irrigation facility for higher forage yield. Ensure and initiate snow-

melt water conservation technology/water conservation tank to provide

irrigation to rangelands.

Medium-term NARC,DLS

2.6 Promote differed rotational grazing system to prevent degradation (Stocking

density according to carrying capacity of the rangelands).

Short and

Medium-term

NARC,DLS

2.7 Implement rangeland protection programme for 2-5 years to protect most

degraded rangelands for further degradation.

Medium and

Long-term

NARC,DLS

2.8 Improve access to drinking water for animals in rangelands. Short-term DLS

2.9 Improve access to path/road for the animals in rangelands Short-term DLS

33

3. Develop and implement

programmes for seed and

plant material production to

meet the demand.

3.1.Evaluate proper forage species for each physiographic region and identify the

potential seed and plant materials pockets through research.

Medium-term NARC

3.2 Establish Resource Centers for seed and planting materials production Short-term NARC,DLS

3.3 Establish Community Based Seed Production Groups for seed and planting

materials production.

Medium-term NARC,DLS

3.4 Promote and initiate contract seed and plant materials production with private

farmers.

Short-term NARC,DLS

3.5 Establish seed banks and gene banks. Medium and

Long-term

NARC,DLS

4. Develop and implement

effective plans and

programmes to expand the

rangeland based enterprises

4.1 Promote rangeland based commercial enterprises by providing public

rangeland on long-term lease at subsidized rate.

Medium-term DOFS,DLS,MOLD

4.2 Develop reliable alternative energy sources for promotion of rangeland based

enterprises.

Medium-term NARC,DLS,FNCCI,DDC,MOLD

4.3 Encourage local level entrepreneurs to produce high quality rangeland

products by creating awareness and capability building also supporting in

necessary infrastructures development

Medium-term NARC,DLS,FNCCI,DDC,MOLD

4.4 Promote and encourage production and marketing of high value products like

yak cheese, pashmina, herbs, wool through establishing reliable Market

Information System between rangeland based entrepreneurs and

stakeholders'

Medium and

Long-term

DLS,NARC,DDC,FNCCI,MOLD,

MOFSC

4.5 Operate National Rangeland Development Fund for the support the

livelihoods of the rangeland dependent communities by improving access to

education, public health services, alterative energy services and development

of small scale infrastructures.

Medium and

Long-term

MOAD,MOLD,MOFSC,MOI

MOE.

4.6 Conduct livestock production and pasture development programs by

improving access to mobile health service, animal husbandry and wool

processing training, construction of dipping tank, mule trail, wooden bridge,

shed, repair of wooden bridge, purchase of bucks and bulls to control

inbreeding and development of rangelands by native and perennial forage

species.

Medium and

Long-term

DLS,NARC

4.7 Promote local production based eco-tourism in certain feasible rangeland

locations/ sites

Medium and

Long-term

MOT,MOLD,DLS,NARC

5. Make rangeland research,

technologies generation and

development work a priority

agenda

5.1 Conduct and promote research on range-wildlife ecology, wildlife habitat,

wildlife- livestock interaction and indigenous pastoral management.

Medium and

Long-term

DLS,NARC,DOFS,DFRS

DSCWM,DNPWC,DOPR

5.2 Coordinate rangeland related research and development programmes of

stakeholders (Department,Universities,Council,NGO/INGOs/CBOs etc)

Short and

Medium-term

DLS,NARC

5.3 Promote alternative energy sources in context to rangeland protection and

degradation (subsidies in solar and wind energy installation, micro-hydro

power establishment, use of snow-melt water collection techniques and

Medium and

Long-term

MOAD,MOLD,MOI,MOE

34

others).

5.4 Support and enhance rangeland based agro-tourism. Medium and

Long-term

DLS,FNCCI,MOT

5.5 Establish research sites in three ecozones for forage and plant biodiversity

and ecosystem productivity as well as in-situ and ex-situ conservation.

Medium and

Long-term

NARC,DLS

5.6 Provide technical services & development support in forage seed and

planting materials to Rangeland User‟s Group Association ( RUGA) and

communities.

Medium and

Long-term

NARC,DLS

5.7 Establishment of fodder bank Short and

Medium-term

NARC,DLS

6. Mainstream conservation

works with development

agendas (both public and

private sectors)

6.1 Prepare and document database of the rangeland resources

(herbs,plants,forages,livestock,birds ) and its biodiversity.

Medium-term DLS,NARC,DOFS,DFRS

DSCWM,DNPWC,DOPR

6.2.Promote and apply in-situ and ex-situ conservation methods to conserve

rangeland resources, local knowledge, skills, practices, technologies and

products.

Medium and

Long-term

DLS,NARC,DOFS,DFRS

DSCWM,DNPWC,DOPR

6.3. Develop and strengthened value chain of the rangeland based organic

products.

Medium and

Long-term

DLS,NARC,DOFS, DDC,DFRS

DSCWM,DNPWC,DOPR,FNCCI

6.4. Develop and implement conservation programmes fitting well with

development programmes

Medium and

Long-term

DLS,NARC,DOFS, DDC,DFRS

DSCWM,DNPWC,DOPR,FNCCI

6.5 Integrate biodiversity conservation and their sustainable use with related

sectors (conservation and utilization of rangeland based water ,plant and

genetic resources).

Medium and

Long-term

DLS,NARC,DOFS, DDC,DFRS

DSCWM,DNPWC,DOPR,FNCCI

7. Develop mechanism to

strengthen capacity building

and to ensure indigenous

knowledge and traditional

skills are preserved

7.1 Make an inventory of indigenous knowledge, skills and practices Short-term NARC,DLS

7.2 Enhance capacity building of professionals, RUGA and community for

proper use of rangeland resources.

Medium-term DLS,NARC,DOFS, DDC,DFRS

DSCWM,DNPWC,DOPR,FNCCI

7.3 Sustained rangeland productivity with reduction in unproductive

animals,bushes,poisonous plants.

Short-term DLS,NARC

7.4 Conserve indigenous traditional knowledge and skills and scale them up Medium-term DLS,NARC

8. Develop plans and

programmes for proper value

addition and marketing for

rangeland products.

8.1 Promote and enhancement of rangeland based agro-tourism. Medium and

Long-term

DLS,NARC,MOT,MOLD,

DDC,FNCCI

8.2 Assist in maintaining quality and marketing of range products (cheese, ghee,

churpi, carpet wool and its product, herb and medicinal and aromatic plants,

paper etc.)

Medium and

Long-term

DLS,NARC,MOFSC,MOAD,

MOLD, DDC,FNCCI

8.3 Promote indigenous livestock and niche products. Medium-term DLS,NARC,DOFS, DDC,DFRS

DSCWM,DNPWC,DOPR,FNCCI

35

Priority actions

The proposed priority actions are summarized in Table 23. The details are presented in Table 24.

These activities are recommended to meet the future demand for fodder and will sustain the range

ecosystem. Activities under these action plans are the basis for any range livestock development

programme. Some of these activities are new while most of them were conducted since 1983 and are

still valid. These activities will help to meet the overall objectives of Rangeland Policy-2012 in

particular. As a part of Leasehold Forestry and Livestock Development Project, Community

Livestock Development Project and Northern Belt Pasture Development Programme, these activities

have brought successes in terms of vegetation coverage, increase in fodder yield, increase in livestock

production and productivity, and restoring the environment. Commencement of these activities will

help in achieving the objectives under Agriculture Development Strategies for livestock and

rangeland resources.

Table :- 23 Summary of the activities and targets for range-livestock improvement.

S.N Activities Unit Target in

10 years

period

1. Institutionalize the ownership of rangelands to RUGA through new act districts 75

2. National Committee, Departmental Management Committee ,District Coordination

Committee and Rangeland Users Committee- Meeting no. 120

3 Establishment and Regulation of National Rangeland Development & Relief Fund. no. 10

4 Rangeland inventory in three ecozones sites/no. 120

5 Protection of rangelands ha(000) 20

6 Species evaluation in three ecozones no. 150

7 Rangeland development in 75 districts ha(000) 50

8 Hay making in 16 districts mt. 160

9 Seed production for Rangeland Development mt 400

10 Winter and summer fodder ha(000) 45

11 Seed production for Winter & Summer Fodder Development mt 1080

12 Resource center and fodder bank establishment and maintenance. no 75

13 Saplings/sets/root stock production and distribution no.(000) 100000

14 Forage Dev.Fund establishment and its regulation no 75

15 Protection from predator sites/no. 160

16 Dissemination of Rangeland Development Technologies and Models. no 15

17 Capacity Building and Training no 400

18 Bush control ha(000) 5

19 Mule trail construction meter(000) 10

20 Water stock development no 160

21 Wooden bridge construction and repair meter(000) 2

22 Animal health care ( Drenching and treatment-3 times a year) no (000) 50

36

Table 24: Target and cost for range-livestock improvement programmes.

Activities Unit Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Total Total

Budget

(000)

1.Institutionalize the

ownership of rangelands to RUGA through new act

District 15 15 15 15 15 - - - - - 75 750

2.National Committee,

Departmental Management Committee ,District

Coordination Committee and

Rangeland Users Committee- Meeting

No. 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 120 120,00

3.Establishment and

Regulation of National Rangeland Development &

Relief Fund.

No. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100000

4.Rangeland inventory in three

ecozones

No. 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 120 120,00

5.Protection of rangelands ha 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 20,000 50,00

6.Species evaluation in three

ecozones

No. 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 150 150,00

7.Rangeland development in 75 districts

ha 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 50000 100000

High hill (16 districts) ha 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 15000 30000

Mid-hill ( 39 districts) ha 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 25000 50000

Terai ( 20 districts) ha 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 10000 20000

8.Hay making in 16 districts Mt. 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 160 32,000

9.Seed production for Rangeland Development

Mt. 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 400 160000

High hill ( Rye grass and

others 6 Mt. and White Clover

and others 4 Mt.)

Mt. 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 120 48000

Mid-hill (Molasses and others-

10Mt. and Stylo and others-

9Mt.)

Mt. 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 200 80000

Terai(Molasses and others-3Mt. and Stylo and others-

2Mt.)

Mt. 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 80 32000

10.Winter and summer fodder ha 4500 4500 4500 4500 4500 4500 4500 4500 4500 4500 45000 50000

High hills (16 districts) ha 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 10000 10000

Mid-hills ( 39 districts) ha 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 20000 30000

Terai ( 20 districts) ha 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 15000 2000

11.Seed production for Winter

& Summer Fodder

Development

Mt. 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 2700 540000

37

High hill ( Oat, Rye grass) Mt 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 600 120000

Mid-hill

(oat,berseem,teaosinte and others)

Mt. 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 1200 240000

Terai(oat,berseem,teaosinte

and others

Mt. 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 900 180000

12.Resource center and fodder bank establishment and

maintenance.

No 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 750 562500

13.Saplings/sets/root stock production and distribution

No. (000)

5000 5000 5000 10000 10000 10000 10000 15000 15000 15000 100000 500000

High hill No.

(000)

1000 1000 1000 2000 2000 2000 2000 3000 3000 3000 20000 100000

Mid-hill No. (000)

2000 2000 2000 4000 4000 4000 4000 6000 6000 6000 40000 200000

Terai No.

(000)

2000 2000 2000 4000 4000 4000 4000 6000 6000 6000 40000 200000

14.Forage Dev.Fund establishment and its

regulation

No. 75 - - - - - - - - - 75 30,00

15.Protection from predator No. 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 160 160,00

16.Dissemination of Rangeland Development

Technologies and Models.

No. - - - - - 3 3 3 3 3 15 60,00

17.Capacity Building and Training.

I.Capacity building of

RUGA,professionals and other stake holders

II.Training on range

management,utization,seed production, hay making,

saplings and sets production in

each district

No. 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 400 80,000

18.Bush control ha 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 5000 15,000

19.Mule trail construction Meter 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 10000 4000

20.Water stock development No. 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 160 16000

21.Wooden bridge

construction and repair

Meter 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 2000 20,00

22.Animal health care (

Drenching and treatment-3

times a year)

No(000) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 50 2000

Total budget in 10 fiscal years 3506250

38

Projection on activities and Achievement

The input and services provided to improve rangelands through regular annual programmes of District

Livestock Service Offices, special programmes under Leasehold Forest and Livestock Project, and

Community Livestock Development Project, have contributed toward an increase in forage biomass in

community, leasehold forestry, and rangelands of high hills. Similarly Intensive Chauri Development

Programme (Dolakha, Rasuwa, Ramechap and Myagdi), Intensive Sheep Development Programme

(Mustang), Integrated Sheep Development Programme (Darchula, Bajhang and Bajura) and Carpet

Wool Sheep Development Programme (Dolpa, Mustang and Manag) have improved household

income generation by 4.5% per year through implementation of various range-livestock

improvement programmes specifically in high hills regions. Based on the present strength of these

programmes, the future projections have been made in accordance with 10 years targets and budget

plans to support the Agriculture Development Strategy (ADS) ( Table :-25).

Table :- 25 A comparative status of target and achievement of current and proposed activities.

S.N Activities Unit Achievement During

five year period

(2007/08-2011/12)

Achievement/

year

Projected

target in 10

year period

Achievement/

year

% increase

per year

basis

1 Rangeland

development

ha 20,022 4004 50,000 5000 125

2. Perennial forage

seed production

mt 29.50 5.90 400 40 678

3 Winter and summer

fodder development

ha 12595 1574 45,000 4500 286

4 Winter and summer

forage seed

production

mt 745 149 1080 270 181

5 Saplings/sets

production and

distribution

no 14,98,5990 29,97,198 10,000,000,0 10,000,000 334

6 Mule trail

construction

meter 3500 700 10,000 1000 143

7 Animal health care

(drenching and

treatments)

no 6228 1246 50,000 10,000 803

Source : Adopted from Annual Reports of NPAFC and CLDP 2005/06- 2011/12.

With the implementation of the proposed activities (Table 24) and its intensification within 10 year

timeframe of ADS, the following achievement will be made;

1. Ownership will be rested with the Rangeland Users Group.

2. Stakeholders of rangeland resources and professionals will be strengthened in skills and

knowledge through capacity building activities.

3. Integrated rangeland resource improvement programmes will be conducted by the

stakeholders under the Public Private Partnership concept.

4. Self-sufficiency in forage seed and planting materials production will be achieved.

5. 1.50 % of the total rangeland area will be developed and improved (at present it is only

0.60%).

6. Vegetation coverage will be increased at least by 50-65%.

7. Forage yield of Steppe rangelands will be increased from 1.0 to 1.5 Mt. ( DM/ha).Forage yield

of Temperate, Alpine and Sub-alpine rangelands will be increased from 2.5 to 3.0 Mt.

(DM/ha).Similarly Tropical-Subtropical rangelands yield will be increased from 4.0 to 5.0

Mt. (DM/ha).

39

8. Stocking Density ( LU/ha) which is at the range of 7.34 - 34.0 times more than the actual

Carrying Capacity will be reduced to half.

9. Transmissible diseases to and from wildlife to domesticated animals will be controlled.

Similarly loss caused by predators will be reduced to a great extent.

10. Overgrazing will be reduced through construction of mule trails, water stock development and

by properly adoption of differed rotational grazing system and forage conservation.

11. Invasion by undesirable and unpalatable bushes/ shrubs and noxious weeds will be controlled

to maintain the growth by C3 plants which will result in increasing forage yield and will

reduce in mortality in animals.

12. Protection of rangeland in particularly of steppe zone will restore environment with

emergence and coverage of valuable edible plant species.

13. With the increased in productivity of rangeland resources and its commercialization approach

household income of herders communities will be increased at least by 6-8% per year.

14. Sustainable, affordable and adoptable technologies will be generated with the active

participation of stakeholders and will be disseminated to its wider use and large area

coverage.

15. The trans-boundary issues for regular use of rangeland of both Tibet Autonomous Region of

People‟s Republic of China and Government of Nepal will be solved through mutual consent

of the two Governments.

16. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Priority on budget and manpower

The area coverage by rangelands is second after forest sector and it supports and provides

large numbers of animals, birds, medicinal plants and water sources. The present structures

and scale of operations under DLS and NARC responsible for range research, development

and management are not sufficient to meet programme goals. Therefore, it is recommended

the Government of Nepal should give higher priority to this sector by providing sufficient

budget and manpower.

Joint programs formulation by stakeholders

It is important that the departments under MOFSC and MOAD should prepare their annual

programmes relating to rangelands welfare, jointly. For example, land management in

national park, land reclamation and erosion control, natural resource survey and research and

land management in and out of national parks are the functions of DNPWC, DSCWM, DFRS

and Department of Forest Services ( DOFS), at district level respectively. DLS and NARC

can help to improve these areas with their district level livestock and pasture production, and

pasture research and development programmes. A jointly conducted programme will be

economical and effective.

Ecozone specific programme formulation

In the sub-tropical regions greater focus should be given to community and leasehold forest

land improvement while more effort is required to improve temperate rangelands where

overgrazing is very common. Steppe rangeland should also receive special consideration for

its improvement through protection and better utilization of potential forage resources

Promotion of native species and suitable technology generation

40

Identification, selection, conservation, and promotion of native species should be a high

priority, while suitable exotic species and improved rangeland management technologies

generated and more widely replicated. Infrastructure support, clearance of the toxic and

unwanted shrubs, silvi-pastoral, genetic improvements, promotion of renewal energy and

biodiversity conservation, improvements in animal health, are other areas requiring attention.

Promotion of markets for staple range products and greater advocacy for better utilization of

range resources are required to mitigate overgrazing of rangelands at the same time

improving land use and productivity for farmers.

Self sufficient in seed and plant materials.

The capacity of seed and plant materials production by research stations and farms will be

increased through adoption of suitable technologies. Private sectors as well as CBSP groups

will be strengthened on seed and plant materials production through contract. Production of

seeds of suitable (native and exotic) grasses and legumes, fodder tree samplings of temperate

species would be ensured by establishing resource centers/nurseries in different districts.

Amriso, Napier and some fodder tree saplings distribution were some of the major activities

under Leasehold Forestry and Livestock Development project and seed and plant materials

production from perennial species under CLDP with few successful stories. However such

programme needs continuity with the development of Resource Centers, CBSP programmes

and private farmers participation through contract within government's annual programme.

These input producing programs will follow national seed quality standards, seed certification

systems, truthful labeling, storage, transportation and marketing guidelines.

Adoption of health care practices

Adoption of proper health care practices can have positive effect on animal productivity. The

herders farmers are not getting proper benefit from the ruminant farming due to limited

knowledge on animal health care particularly infestation with parasites and other

economically significant diseases. Similarly, rangelands inside Protected Areas (PA's) which

also provide good grazing land for domesticated animals from nearby areas, are also the

source of transmittable diseases to domestic animals from wildlife (FMD, rabies, parasitic

diseases of common concerns) and vice- versa.

Amendment in Rangeland Policy-2012

Domestication of possible wildlife especially endangered species should be promoted by

formulating new legislation for wildlife domestication by interested group of farmers ( user‟s

group) or private farmers.

Improvement on bilateral relationship with Tibet for regular use of rangeland.

In Rangeland Policy-2012, trans-boundary pasture utilization is raised as an issue. Due to

poor quarantine measures and the large animal population which were used to graze the

rangeland of Tibetan Autonomous Region of China, the Government of China and the

Government of Nepal mutually agreed to stop the migration of herds across their border back

in April 1988.The present scenario in both the countries is different in context with livestock

and rangeland conditions and its resources utilization. Therefore, negations on utilization and

management of rangeland resources should be promoted with Government of China while

substantial rangeland resources development and management programmes should be

conducted giving high priority by Government of Nepal.

41

Reference Alirol, Ph. 1979. Transhuming Animal husbandry system in the Kalinchowk Region (Central Nepal) , Swiss Association of Technical Assistance, Kathmandu. Annual Report 1988/89. Agricultural Research Station (Pasture) Dhunche, Rasuwa

Annual Report 2009/10. Agricultural Research Station (Pasture) Dhunche, Rasuwa

Annual Report 2010/11. Agricultural Research Station (Pasture) Dhunche, Rasuwa Annual Report 2011/12. Agricultural Research Station (Pasture) Dhunche, Rasuwa

Annual Report 2009/10. Department of Livestock Services, Harihar Bhawan Annual Report 2010/11. Department of Livestock Services, Harihar Bhawan Annual Report 2011/12. Department of Livestock Services, Harihar Bhawan Annual Report 2009/10. Directorate of Livestock Production, Harihar Bhawan Annual Report 2010/11. Directorate of Livestock Production, Harihar Bhawan Annual Report 2011/12. Directorate of Livestock Production, Harihar Bhawan Annual Report 2009/10. National Pasture and Animal Nutrition Center, Harihar Bhawan Annual Report 2010/11. National Pasture and Animal Nutrition Center, Harihar Bhawan Annual Report 2011/12. National Pasture and Animal Nutrition Center, Harihar Bhawan Annual Report 2009/10. Pasture and Fodder Division, Khumaltar Annual Report 2010/11. Pasture and Fodder Division, Khumaltar Annual Report 2011/12. Pasture and Fodder Division, Khumaltar Annual Report 2009/10. Leasehold Forestry and Livestock Programme,NPANC, Harihar Bhawan Annual Report 2010/11. Leasehold Forestry and Livestock Programme,NPANC, Harihar Bhawan

Annual Report 2011/12. Leasehold Forestry and Livestock Programme,NPANC, Harihar Bhawan

APROSC. 1995. Agriculture Perspective Plan. Agriculture Project Services Center and John Mellor

Associates, Inc. Kathmandu Archer, A. C. 1987. Himalayan

Archer, A.C 1990. Department of Livestock services Pasture and Fodder Development in the High

Altitude Zone Project Nepal (Nep /85/007). Project Findings and recommendations, FAO

Rome.

Archer, A. C. 1987 : Himalayan Pasture and Fodder Research Network. RAS/ 79/121

Consultant's Report. Kathmandu, Nepal

Basnyat, N.B. 1989. Report on pasture and rangeland resources in upper Mustang. Consultant's

Report. NEP/85/007.FAO/ UNDP Project, Pasture and Fodder DEvelopment in the High

Altitude Zone, Nepal. CBS, Statistical Pocket Book Nepal, 1993. Central Bureau of Statistics, Government of Nepal, 1993

Cook,J.G. et al 1994. “Vegetative response to burning on Wyonming mountain –shrub big game

ranges”, Journal of Range Management 47,pp. 296-302.

42

District Development Profile of Nepal,2012.A socio-economic database of Nepal.Mega Publication

and Research Centre,Kathmandu,Nepal.

Dong, S.K, Lassoie J.P. Yan, Z.L., Sharma E., Shrestha K.K and Pariyar D, 2007. Indigenous

rangeland resource management in the mountainous area of Northern Nepal: A case study

from Rasuwa district. The Rangeland Journal. 29, 149-160

Ecole, C.G and Joshi D.D. 2011. Analysis of Fishes in Langtang National Park in Rasuwa District.

Published by NZFHRC, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Forestry Master Plan for the Forestry Sector, Nepal, Ministry of Forest and soil Conservation,

HMG/Nepal, 1989.

Grela, A. and Sharma, K.P. 1991. Observation of Grassland Productivity in Khumbu, Nepal.

Proceedings of the Regional Workshop of the Himalayan Pasture and Fodder Research

Network, Regional Seminar, 13-19 November, Palampur, India. Inskipp, C. 1989. Nepal‟s forest birds: Their status and conservation. ICBP Monograph No. 4. U.K.

Joshi,H.D, Joshi,B.R.and Shrestha,B.S.2006 : development of an Environmentally Friendly

Technology for Reducing Predation Loss in Migratory Sheep and Goat Production System

with Wildlife Conservation. In Proceedings of the 6 th National Workshop on Livestock and

Fisheries Research, July 1-2, Lalitpur,Nepal.

Kandel, R.N; Adhikary, J.R; Aryal, K.P; Ghimire, K.B. 1989. Survey of Mustang. High Altitude

Pasture Survey Group, Khumaltar, Nepal. Khanal B. 2011. Rangeland management. Agricultural Research Station (Pasture) Dhunche, Rasuwa Land Resource Mapping Project (Main Report),1986: Land Resource Mapping Project, HMG/ Nepal,

LMP ,1993 : Livestock Master Plan. The livestock Sector volume III , Asian Development

Bank /ANZDECK /APROSC. MOAC,2010/11: Statistical Information of Nepalese Agriculture,Singha Durbar,Kathmandu.Nepal.

Miller, Daniel J. 1987 : Yaks and grasses , pasturalism in the Himalayan entries of Nepal and

Bhutan and strategies for sustained Development , University of Montana USA

Muhammad, N.1986 : .Range Management in the watersheds of Pakistan,in proceedings of the

International workshop on watershed management in the Hindu-Kush Himalayan Region,

ICIMOD, Chengdu, China.

National Policies.2010.National policies, strategies, perspective plans and action plans. Informal

Sector Research and Study Centre.Kamaladi,Kathmandu,Nepal.

National Land Use Policies.2012.Ministry of Land Reform and Management,Singha

Durbar,Kathmandu.

Pande, R.S.1994: Livestock Feeds and Grassland Development in Nepal. National Forage and

Grassland Research Centre, Kathmandu, Nepal.

43

Panday, S.B., grela. A., raut,Y. and Joshi, N.D. 1990. Performance of different temperate grass and

legume species. II. Comperative growth performance of different cultivars of red and white

clover under three fertilizer treatments. Nep. J. Anim. Sci. Vol. 7 53-60.

Paudel,R.P. 2011: Experience of Community Livestock Development Project in Forage

Development.In Proceedings of the Workshop on Fodder Crops Technology and Small Farm

Income Generation, August 26-28, Dhulikhel,Nepal.

Rangeland Policy-2012.Rangeland Policy,National Pasture and Animal Feed Center,Harihar

Bhawan,Lalitpur.

Pradhan,S.M.Pariyar,D. Adhikary,J.R. and Ghimire,R.C. 2000: Range System Study of Ramechap

District ( Thodung Region) of Nepal.In Proceedings of the Fourth Meeting of Temperate Asia

Pasture and Fodder Network ( TAPAFON).Pakistan Forest Institute, June 6-

11Peshawar.Pakistan.

Pariyar, D., Banstola,B.R. and Sedhain,G.K.1996: Fodder and Pasture Research and Development in

Nepal.hills Leasehold Forestry and Forage Development Project,August 1996,Kathmandu.

Pariyar, D. and Shrestha R. P. 1992 : Grazingland Inventory and Potential Study for

Bhumisthan Village Development Committee, Dhading, Nepal.

Pariyar, D. 1993: Existing feed situation in different regions of Nepal and strategies developed to

increase feed production, In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Grassland

Resource.Hohhot,august 15-20, China.

Rafi,M. 1965: Muslakh Range Project ,Quetta,West Pakistan,Pakistan Journal of Forestry 15:319-338.

Rajbhandary, HB and Shah SG 1981. Trends Projection of Livestock Production the Hills of Nepal.

Seminar on Nepal Experience in Hill Agriculture Development, HMG, Nepal

Rangeland Policy,2011: National Pasture and Animal Nutrition Center, Government of Nepal,Harihar

Bhawan,Lalitpur.

Raut,Y.1998. A handbook of animal husbandry.Part I: Pasture production ( Training Manual).Hills

Leasehold Forestry and Forage Development Project ,Harhar Bhawan,Lalitpur.

Serchand, L. and S. L. Pradhan. 1998. Domestic Animal Genetic Resource Management and

Utilization in Nepal. National Biodiversity Action Plan. Kathmandu.

Shrestha, N.P.; Neopane, S.P.; Gurung, H.B.; Pakhrin, B. and Shrestha, J. 1990. Observation on the

adaptibility and seed production of forage legumes at Pakhribas agricultural Centre. PAC

Technical paper No. 126. Pakhribas Agricultural Centre, Kathmandu.

Shrestha, N. P. 1998. Livestock and Poultry Genetic Resource Conservation in Nepal. National

Biodiversity Action Plan. Kathmandu.

Shrestha, N.P. and Shrestha, P. 1991. Study of High Altitude Pasture in East Nepal.Proceedings of

The First National Animal Science Convention,January 14-15, Lalitpur,Nepal.pp 43-51.

{{Shrestha,B.S. Joshi,B.R.,Joshi,H.D.2006:Migratory Small Ruminants : Their Potential and Economic

Contribution in the High Hills and Mountains of Nepal. In Proceedings of the 6 th National

Workshop on Livestock and Fisheries Research, July 1-2, Lalitpur,Nepal.

44

Singh, S.B.; Joshi, N.P.; Tiwari, K.R.; Gurung, N.K and Dongol,D.R. 1990. Evaluation of native and

exotic pasture species at Gothichaur sheep farm, Jumla. Paper presented at the Regional

Seminar on High Altitude Pasture Research in the Himalayan Range, March 20-24,

Kathmandu.

Stainton , J.B.1973 : Forest of Nepal ,John Murray press London.

Tiwari,M.R, and Pandey,Tamrakar N.L.2006 : Chyangra Production System and Feeding Resource:A

Case Stydy of Mustang District. In Proceedings of the 6 th National Workshop on Livestock

and Fisheries Research, July 1-2, Lalitpur,Nepal. Whyte R.U.1968 : Nepal Grassland of the Monsoon , Faber and Faber, London.

Yadav,D.P, Thakur,U.C and Pandey,Shankar S. 2011: Scenario of Forage Seed Production and

Supply Situation in Nepal. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Fodder Crops Technology and

Small Farm Income Generation, August 26-28, Dhulikhel,Nepal.

45

Annex-I : List of grasses and legumes used for rangeland development under High Altitude Pasture

Development Project.

Districts Grasses Kg Legumes Kg Total

Sindhupalchok Dactylis glomerata,Phleum

pretense, Festuca

arundinacea,Bromus

willdenowii,Agrostis tunis,

Holcus lanatus,Avena

sative,Secale cerale

651 Trifolium repens,

T.hybridum,T.pratense,

Lotus pedunculatus,vicia

dasycarpa

377 1028

Dolakha Dactylis glomerata, ,

Festuca arundinacea,

Phleum pretense,Lolium

perenne, Bromus

willdenowii, Avena

sative,Secale cerale.

660 Trifolium

repens,T.hybridum,T.pratense

295 955

Humla Phalaris aquatica, Festuca

arundinacea, Bromus

willdenowii, Dactylis

glomerata, Lolium perenne

400 Medicago sativa, Trifolium

repens,

T.hybridum,T.pratense

270 670

Dolpa Festuca arundinacea,

Phalaris aquatica

252 Medicago sativa, Trifolium

repens, vicia dasycarpa

352 604

Mustang Dactylis glomerata,Festuca

arundinacea,Agropyron

elongatum, Phalaris

aquatic, Avena

sative,Secale cerale,Kochia

scorpria

605 Trifolium repens, T.hybridum,

T.pratense,Medicao

falcata,Medicago litoralis

440 1045

Taplejung Dactylis glomerata,

Festuca arundinacea,

2 Trifolium repens, T.hybridum,

T.pratense,Medicago sativa

103 105

Sankhuwasabha Dactylis glomerata,

Festuca arundinacea,

2 Trifolium repens, 27 29

Gorkha Dactylis glomerata,

Festuca arundinacea

2 Trifolium repens, T.hybridum,

T.pratense,

3 5

Manang Agropyron elongatum,

Dactylis glomerata

2 T.pratense, T.hybridum, 47 49

Mugu Agropyron elongatum,

Dactylis glomerata

Festuca arundinacea,

27 T.pratense, T.hybridum,

Trifolium repens,

99 126

Jumla Dactylis glomerata,Festuca

arundinacea, , Bromus

willdenowii, Lolium

perenne

42 Trifolium repens, T.hybridum,

T.pratense,T.subterraneum

20 62

Total 2585 Total 2033 4618

46

Annex II – Districts under CLDP and LFLD

S.No CLDP

Districts

NP&ANC

Districts

CLDP

Districts

LF&LD

Terai Terai Mid-hills Mid-hills

1 Banke Banke Tanahu Tanahu

2 Bardiya, Bardiya Lumjung Lumjung

3 Dhanusha Dhanusha Makwanpur Makwanpur,

4 Bara Bara Kavre Kavre,

5 Mahottari Mahottari Dadeldhura Dadeldhura

6 Sarlahi Sarlahi Baitadi Baitadi

7 Rautahat Rautahat Doti Doti

8 Siraha Siraha Achham Achham

9 Saptari Saptari Pyuthan Pyuthan

10 Sunsari, Sunsari, Baglung Gorkha

11 Kailali Kailali Palpa Dolakha

12 Kanchanpur Kanchanpur Gulmi Sindhuli

13 Jhapa Jhapa Kathmandu Chitwan

14 Morang Morang Lalitpur Salyan

15 Parsa Kapilbastu Nuwakote Okhaldunga

16 Chitwan Dang Surkhet Bhojpur

17 Nawalparasi - Rolpa Panchthar

18 - - Salyan Terahathum

19 - - Rukum, Khotang

20 - - Dailekh Sindhupalchok

21 - - Jajarkot Ramechap

22 - - Arghakhanchi Dhading